Jesus died for the sins of the world

[Albion]

Likewise you and Arminius.

LOL. The Christian churches were teaching free will many centuries before Arminius came on the scene to contest Calvin's innovations. Over 15 centuries, in fact!

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.

Yeah. I explained how you misunderstood the meaning of that particular word and that in the original language from which it was translated in the King James Version, the word has a meaning more like "were inclined to."

In other words, it has nothing to do with any eternal predestining of anyone from before their births, etc.

 

[1689Dave]

LOL. The Christian churches were teaching free will many centuries before Arminius came on the scene to contest Calvin's innovations. Over 15 centuries, in fact!


Yeah. I explained how you misunderstood the meaning of that particular word, and that in the original language from which it is translated in the King James Version, the word means more like "inclined to." In other words, it has nothing to do with any eternal predestining of anyone from before their births, etc.

"Let's twist again like we did last summer"?

 

[1689Dave]

"World": Many definitions but few will fit. Here's an example: "God so loved the world" Jn.3:16 compare with "Love not the world" 1 Jn. 2:15. John defines the world as an organized system of rebellion. So Jn. 3:16 must mean God so loved the organized system of rebellion?

But this contradicts “The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: Thou hatest all workers of iniquity.” Psalm 5:5 (KJV 1900) where God hates the world. The best option is the future saved world where Christs will have died for everyone. Where they will not perish. Need I say people perish in this world?

 

[prism]

LOL. The Christian churches were teaching free will many centuries before Arminius came on the scene to contest Calvin's innovations. Over 15 centuries, in fact!

Were they teaching 'justification by faith alone', or you don't hold to that because of it's novelty?

In other words, it has nothing to do with any eternal predestining of anyone from before their births, etc.

In other words Scripture doesn't interpret Scripture?

Ephesians 1:4 KJV
According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

 

[Albion]

Were they teaching 'justification by faith alone', or you don't hold to that because of it's novelty?

I don't believe that a case can be made for the proposition that the Church ever taught justification without Faith. The T-U-L-I-P stuff, however, was prompted by the excesses of the Medieval Church in the West.

To that extent, I can understand the motivation, but that's not the same as thinking that what we call Calvinism had any standing in Christendom prior to the Reformation (and even then, it was only a certain segment of the Reformation that we're referring to).

Ephesians 1:4 KJV
According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

Again, this is far from an endorsement of the idea that God had chosen his favorite sinners from out of humankind, one by one, and from before all eternity.

For one thing, the verse itself refers not to particular individuals but to most of the world's population ("and when the Gentiles...."). That's not the concept Calvin taught in any case.

And then to try to "prove" that God actually did name this person and that person to be saved by reference to a misunderstanding of one word isn't going to do it.

 

[Josiah]

So unless the whole world is elect, Jesus died for some?

@prism


No.

The Bible states that Jesus died for all people.
It does not state that all people are "Elect" and thus are given faith in that death for them.

It ain't that hard.... unless you join Dave by insisting that faith is irrelevant to anything, faith having no role in personal justification, his foundational point that if Jesus died for all then all are personally justified (faith being irrelevant; it just doesn't matter if you rely/apply/apprehend that death or just spit in His face, denounce and repudiate Him and the Cross). IF you agree with Dave there, then either the Bible lies when it says Jesus died for all OR the Bible lies when it indicates that not all are personally justified. Of course, the Bible is not wrong in either, he's wrong by repudiating faith.

Jesus was the God/man

Of course, no one here denies that. It just has nothing to do with the discussion. It doesn't make your point that no Apostle said "Jesus died for all"(Universal Atonement) in the Book of Acts (but obviously did several did in other books of the Bible) OR said, "Jesus did NOT die for all but ONLY, SOLELY, EXCLUSIVELY for some unknown few" (nor in any other book of the Bible).

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.

Correct.

But of course, this addresses FAITH, not the CROSS. This verse does not say, "and as many as were ordained to eternal life were died for."

No one denies that the Elect are given faith... that some are "ordained" for that (although see how Albion proved from the Greek that Acts 13:8 actually doesn't say that). That's not the issue here.

The issue is THIS:

Does the Bible state that Jesus DIED for all people (Universal Atonement)
OR
Does the Bible state that Jesus did NOT die foe all but ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY for some unknown few (Limited Atonement)


Did you read post 428? If so, do you have any questions about what is written there?




.This dot is dedicated to MoreCoffee

 

[1689Dave]

No.

The Bible states that Jesus died for all people.
It does not state that all people are "Elect" and thus are given faith in that death for them.

It ain't that hard.... unless you join Dave by insisting that faith is irrelevant to anything, faith having no role in personal justification, his foundational point that if Jesus died for all then all are personally justified (faith being irrelevant; it just doesn't matter if you rely/apply/apprehend that death or just spit in His face, denounce and repudiate Him and the Cross). Then either the Bible lies when it says Jesus died for all OR the Bible is wrong when it indicates that not all are personally justified. Of course, the Bible is not wrong in either, he's wrong by repudiating faith.

“He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.” John 12:40 (KJV 1900)

“Make the heart of this people fat, And make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; Lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, And understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.” Isaiah 6:10 (KJV 1900)

“Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.” Matthew 13:13–15 (KJV 1900)


How about these guys?

 

[Albion]

None of that appears to deal with the issue here.

 

[1689Dave]

None of that appears to deal with the issue here.

Why would Christ waste his blood on any God cursed to eternal hell? There are more we can mention.

“Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?” Romans 9:18–24 (KJV 1900)

 

[Albion]

I'm sorry, but there's no escaping the conclusion that you just do not understand the issue.

With you, either every mortal is given a free pass or else there's predestination. Well, those are not the only alternatives, but you appear determined not to deal with, let alone agree with, any explanation.

That being the case, I can only "second" Josiah's suggestion that you either confront what was explained in post #428 or else there's nothing more to say.

 

[Josiah]

That being the case, I can only "second" Josiah's suggestion that you either confront what was explained in post #428 or else there's nothing more to say.

@Albion


Dave as no reply. That's why he evades post 428 and all others that point to Scripture.

Just LOTS of logical fallacies..... changing the topic say to Predestination (red herrings), or that if something applies to in one case, it applies to all (false equivocation), oh, too many to mention.

Meanwhile, not one Scripture that states Jesus did not die for all but only for some. Lots that verbatim state that Jesus died for all people.

And just to make it even MORE silly, he moves beyond logical fallacies to insist that QUESTIONS are substantiation. This even a middle schooler would not employ in a debate, it would be too silly for him. Questions are substantiation for NOTHING. Answers are. But he has none of those, so......

He is not here to discuss. And certainly not to learn. He is unaccountable, infallible. Thus, he must evade everything posted to him... just keep making the same fallacies, the same flames, the same absurd accusation. And keep insisting that QUESTIONS are proof.


Albion, here's what I think is happening. See if you agree...

1. We have a 'just swallow it whole" radical Calvinist (they exist in all schools of thought). The assumption that his teachers are infallible, unaccountable, just right because they are. He must echo them. And rebuff any call to accountability for what they said.

2. TULIP - especially the way Dave seems to be relating the "L"- reveals that he's swallowing a very, very radical, extreme, latter-day form of Calvinistism. Calvinism (like Lutheranism) had it's "Church Fathers" who developed the thoughts of the founder; Calvinism has their guys. Radical, extreme stuff.

3. Those radical extremists debated NOT with Catholicism or Lutheranism, they debated with extreme, radical, latter-day Arminianists. THIS MUST NOT BE MISSED. TULIP was actually just a reaction to something radical Arminianists developed. These two groups debated with EACH OTHER, getting more and more radical, using the very same logical fallacies as the other, the very same denial of any verse they didn't like. Two peas in a pod - with opposite positions. They've been continuing this for nearly 500 years - neither accepting any accountability or even the theoretical possiblity that they even could be wrong. Just that same logical fallacies, the same accusation - ad nausium. And thus no possibility of resolution.

4. Here's one of the problems with that: Their absurd points ONLY work on each other. Which is why Dave HAS to make us extreme Arminianist, synergistic, works-rightousness, free-will Baptists. But all the arguments of radical Calvinist are for THOSE. And we aren't those. He has no way to address Monergists.... no way to deal with those who don't use the same logical fallacies that Arminianists/Calvinists do in their debates... no way to deal with we who actually believe in the words on the page rather than the imposed eisegesis of their infallible Fathers they echo.

He CAN'T respond. Partly because he has nothing... but just as much because he's STUCK in that Arminian/Calvinist debate. When he reads or "discusses" with one who is neither, he has not a clue what to say. He hasn't thought this out, he's just echoing his "side" in the Calvinist debate with Arminianists.


I can't give myself credit for this insight. It comes from my wife. She comes from a LONG line of Reformed believers, all the way back to the Scottish Reformation. She has LOTS of Presbyterian ministers in her family line, going back some five centuries - some I guess pretty famous. She was raised in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (a very conservative branch) and her parents and siblings are still very active there.


Blessings on your Advent, my brother..



.This dot is dedicated to MoreCoffee

 

[1689Dave]

@Albion


Dave as no reply. That's why he evades post 428 and all others that point to Scripture.

Just LOTS of logical fallacies..... changing the topic say to Predestination (red herrings), or that if something applies to in one case, it applies to all (false equivocation), oh, too many to mention.

Meanwhile, not one Scripture that states Jesus did not die for all but only for some. Lots that verbatim state that Jesus died for all people.

And just to make it even MORE silly, he moves beyond logical fallacies to insist that QUESTIONS are substantiation. This even a middle schooler would not employ in a debate, it would be too silly for him. Questions are substantiation for NOTHING. Answers are. But he has none of those, so......

He is not here to discuss. And certainly not to learn. He is unaccountable, infallible. Thus, he must evade everything posted to him... just keep making the same fallacies, the same flames, the same absurd accusation. And keep insisting that QUESTIONS are proof.


Albion, here's what I think is happening. See if you agree...

1. We have a 'just swallow it whole" radical Calvinist (they exist in all schools of thought). The assumption that his teachers are infallible, unaccountable, just right because they are. He must echo them. And rebuff any call to accountability for what they said.

2. TULIP - especially the way Dave seems to be relating the "L" reveal that he's swallowing the very, very radical, extreme, latter-day form of Calvinistism. Calvinism (like Lutheranism) had it's "Church Fathers" who developed the thoughts of the founder; Calvinism has their guys. Radical, extreme stuff.

3. Those radical extremists debated NOT with Catholicism or Lutheranism, they debated with extreme, radical, latter-day Arminianists. THIS MUST NOT BE MISSED. TULIP was actually just a reaction to something radical Arminianists developed. These two groups debated with EACH OTHER, getting more and more radical, using the very same logical fallacies as the other, the very same denial of any verse they didn't like. Two peas in a pod - with opposite positions. They've been continuing this for nearly 500 years - neither accepting any accountability or even the theoretical possiblity that they even could be wrong. Just that same logical fallacies, the same accusation - ad nausium. And thus no possibility of resolution.

4. Here's one of the problems with that: Their absurd points ONLY work on each other. Which is why Dave HAS to make us extreme Arminianist, synergistic, works-rightousness, free-will Baptists. But all the arguments of radical Calvinist are for THOSE. And we aren't those. He has no way to address Monergists.... no way to deal with those who don't use the same logical fallacies that Arminianists/Calvinists do in their debates... no way to deal with we who actually believe in the words on the page rather than the imposed eisegesis of their infallible Fathers they echo.

He CAN'T respond. Partly because he has nothing... but just as much because he's STUCK in that Arminian/Calvinist debate. When he reads or "discusses" with one who is neither, he has not a clue what to say. He hasn't thought this out, he's just echoing his "side" in the Calvinist debate with Arminianists.


I can't give myself credit for this insight. It comes from my wife. She comes from a LONG line of Reformed believers, all the way back to the Scottish Reformation. She has LOTS of Presbyterian ministers in her family line, going back some five centuries - some I guess pretty famous. He was raised in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (a very conservative branch) and her parents and siblings are still very active there.


Blessings on your Advent, my brother..



.This dot is dedicated to MoreCoffee

Why slander those you cannot refute? This speaks volumes to the casual reader.

 

[Albion]

@Albion


Dave has no reply. That's why he evades post 428 and all others that point to Scripture.

True enough.

Meanwhile, not one Scripture that states Jesus did not die for all but only for some. Lots that verbatim state that Jesus died for all people.

True.

He is not here to discuss.

Thank you! Someone had to say it at last!

Albion, here's what I think is happening. See if you agree...

1. We have a 'just swallow it whole" radical Calvinist (they exist in all schools of thought). The assumption that his teachers are infallible, unaccountable, just right because they are. He must echo them. And rebuff any call to accountability for what they said.

2. TULIP - especially the way Dave seems to be relating the "L" reveal that he's swallowing the very, very radical, extreme, latter-day Calvinists. Calvinism (like Lutheranism) had it's "Church Fathers" who developed the thoughts of the founder; Calvinism has their guys. Radical, extreme stuff.

3. Those radical extremists debated NOT with Catholicism or Lutheranism, they debated with extreme, radical, latter-day Arminianists. THIS MUST NOT BE MISSED. TULIP was actually just a reaction to something radical Arminianists developed. These two groups debated with EACH OTHER, getting more and more radical, using the very same logical fallacies as the other, the very same denial of any verse they didn't like. Two peas in a pod - with opposite positions. They've been continuing this for nearly 500 years - neither accepting any accountability or even the theoretical possiblity that they even could be wrong. Just that same logical fallacies, the same accusation - ad nausium. And thus no possibility of resolution.

4. Here's one of the problems with that: Their absurd points ONLY work on each other. Which is why Dave HAS to make us extreme Arminianist, synergistic, works-rightousness, free-will Baptists. But all the arguments of radical Calvinist are for THOSE. And we aren't those. He has no way to address Monergists.... no way to deal with those who don't use the same logical fallacies that Arminianists/Calvinists do in their debates... no way to deal with we who actually believe in the words on the page rather than the imposed eisegesis of their infallible Fathers they echo.

He CAN'T respond. Partly because he has nothing... but just as much because he's STUCK in that Arminian/Calvinist debate. When he reads or "discusses" with one who is neither, he has not a clue what to say. He hasn't thought this out, he's just echoing his "side" in the Calvinist debate with Arminianists.


I can't give myself credit for this insight. It comes from my wife. She comes from a LONG line of Reformed believers, all the way back to the Scottish Reformation. She has LOTS of Presbyterian ministers in her family line, going back some five centuries - some I guess pretty famous. He was raised in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (a very conservative branch) and her parents and siblings are still very active there.

You said it well and, besides, I'm not about to disagree with your wife about this! I do appreciate her take on the matter, especially because of her background.

When it comes to our friend, it's time we recognize that he interprets Scripture in whatever way it can be made to support the views he came here to disseminate. And those are based on little more than another person's speculations as written in a book that Dave picked up somewhere. There's no arguing back against that, not with history, logic, or Scripture.

Blessings on your Advent, my brother..

And may God be with you and yours at this special time as well.

 

[1689Dave]

Boys, think of how much you hate God and worship idols instead if Calvin is right about sin and grace. Or Luther for that matter.

 

[Josiah]

Boys, think of how much you hate God and worship idols instead if Calvin is right about sin and grace. Or Luther for that matter.

@Lamb
@1689Dave
@Albion
@Origen


I appreciate you confirming my point.

But, sincerely my brother, I have NO desire to do anything but to actually have a constructive conversation. The point here IS important - the Cross is central to our Christian faith. But I think it is absolutely evident to everyone here that you are not interested (maybe even able) to have a discussion on this (perhaps on some other topic). We've spent FAR more time with you on this than can be justified (questioning our stewardship) and perhaps you've been to many sites before with the identical points but found yourself ignored (or even banned), so here you are.

Friend, all your points are easily recognized. They are the same old worn points that radical, extreme Calvinists raise to Arminians. For nearly 500 years. The same old extremist Calvinist vs. extremeist Armianian debate. The same logical fallacies... the same evasion of Scripture... the same imposition of your radical theology on Scripture through incredibly extreme eiegesis. Some(perhaps foolishly) thought we could HELP you get past that, to actually THINK about what you are posting, but no... you are just echoing the same old arguments leveled at Arminianist (without even realizing that you aren't talking to Arminianists - so you have to MAKE us what you know we aren't so that your apologetic makes any sense at all.


You KNOW what the Universal Atonement point is: Jesus died for all people. That's it, that's all, and you KNOW that.
We all KNOW what the Limited Atonement point is: Jesus did NOT die for all but ONLY for some unknown few.

I think it is obvious we've shown our position to be the echo of a lot of Scriptures. And you've proven that you have nothing that echos your position. You came close to being honest and admitting that once, then perhaps realized you shouldn't have done that. So, what we have, my brother, is the PARROT of the old radical Calvinist apologetic used against Arminian extremists. Using the same logical fallacies that Arminianists do... the same radical eisegesis Arminianists do.... the same silly assumption that questions are substantiation that Arminianists do. Problem is: We aren't Arminianists. It doesn't work here. You simply ASSUME that what we hold MUST be what the radical Arminianists do - so no bother reading what WE are saying. Indeed, the very title "Universal Atonement" was given by radical Calvinists for a position of Arminianists.

Perhaps we have a choice. Perhaps we need to consider sound stewardship of time and realize you can't discuss this, you can only parrot your radical Calvinist sources without though or accountability, sources directed to an audience entirely different than we are. And just accept the reality: Any attempt to discuss this with you is a complete waste of time. OR we can HOPE that this topic actually matters to you... that we can pull out of the Calvinist/Arminian debate (since it doesn't apply here) and HOPE that you at least understand OUR point (not Arminius').

But here's my concern if we TRY to have a discussion with you. I don't know if you CAN do that. If you CAN break out of your extreme Calvinist/Arminian debate. And you just get more and more extreme, even coming close to denying the reality of grace and faith... oh, like the Universalists who split off from your form of Calvinism 300 years ago, you seem virtually on the edge of throwing out the very core of Christianity - that better than realize those radical, extreme, latter-day Calvinists pushed this way too far.

Blessings on your Advent and Christmas seasons.


Lamb, Albion, Origen, etc. - see the next post.




.

 

[Josiah]

To my friends who accept that Jesus died for all....

My wife and her family all come out of very conservative, traditional Reformed (Calvinist) faith. All the way back to the Scottish Refornation.

Here's the account they related to me:

Calvin himself was not infallible, not always right - but (like Luther) a brilliant and insightful man who worked hard to bring Christianity back to a sound, biblical teaching. But he was followed by those who were insistent on taking Calvin to "logical conclusions." They made "logical extensions." And all of this was done vis-a-vis Arminianists (and even some semi-Pelagian groups). As their "enemies" seemed to move further and further into error, they moved further and further to new forms of Calvinism. To quote her father, they TRIED to hijack the Reformed movement - and nearly did.

The topic Dave has decided to focus on is (ironically) the most controversal and LEAST accepted part of TULIP, the part almost no Calvinist accepts - in the way Dave has been presenting it. As her family explained to me, his "take"on this very likely IS how those radical Calvinist meant it, and it was meant to be the opposite of the equally radical view of Arminianists on this. Those Calvinists labled the two positions: "Limited Atonement" (their view, flowing from the predestination view, not Scripture) and they labled the opposite as "Universal Atonement". Originally, these radicals meant it as Dave is saying. Dave is just copying/pasting from them.

BUT, that never was the accepted view - and certainly isn't today. What is meant by this among the Reformed is that the EFFECT of Jesus' death on the Cross is limited to the Elect. His death WAS for all ("objective") .... and it was SUFFICIENT for all.... (all those Scriptures) but ONLY the Elect benefit because only the elect are given faith. When I responded, "Yeah, but that's the Universal Atonement view" they said "Yes, we know that." So.... the "L" today means the EFFECT, the BLESSING of the Cross is for the Elect since the Elect are given faith. And of course, that's pretty solid. But you have to break out of the OLD DEBATE to say that. And... they admitted... Dave is hardly alone. That old debate still ranges for a tiny, tiny number of Calvinists (and Arminianists) - same evasion of Scripture and history, same logical fallacies, same imposition of a philosophy. Some just went too far.... and some just parrot them.



.

 

[Lamb]

Boys, think of how much you hate God and worship idols instead if Calvin is right about sin and grace. Or Luther for that matter.

That's really not a very kind thing to say on a Christian forum.

 

[prism]

I don't believe that a case can be made for the proposition that the Church ever taught justification without Faith. The T-U-L-I-P stuff, however, was prompted by the excesses of the Medieval Church in the West.

I believe I said 'by faith ALONE' big difference. Remember 'sola fidei'?
Tulip Stuff is another discussion.

To that extent, I can understand the motivation, but that's not the same as thinking that what we call Calvinism had any standing in Christendom prior to the Reformation (and even then, it was only a certain segment of the Reformation that we're referring to).

The point was novelty of a teaching, which 'sola fidei' represented, corresponding to limited atonement. The question isn't 'how new' a teaching is but rather 'how true'.

Again, this is far from an endorsement of the idea that God had chosen his favorite sinners from out of humankind, one by one, and from before all eternity.

Granted, universally we are all sinners.

For one thing, the verse itself refers not to particular individuals but to most of the world's population ("and when the Gentiles...."). That's not the concept Calvin taught in any case.

'us' refers to the Church at Ephesus v. 1 (to the saints which are at Ephesus), not 'to most of the world's population'.

And then to try to "prove" that God actually did name this person and that person to be saved by reference to a misunderstanding of one word isn't going to do it.

True, it takes the whole tenor of Scripture, not a pet word or verse or two.

 

[Albion]

The point was novelty of a teaching, which 'sola fidei' represented, corresponding to limited atonement.

I cannot agree that Sola Fide is an adjunct of Limited Atonement, and certainly not that it's simply a nice after-effect as Dave insists it is. BUT I do appreciate you indicating that you know Faith is a necessary next step after Universal Atonement (to put it crudely).

That's a point that proved impossible to impress upon him, believing as he does that if Christ had died for all, then everyone would be guaranteed Heaven, just like that.

 

[prism]

It ain't that hard.... unless you join Dave by insisting that faith is irrelevant to anything, faith having no role in personal justification, his foundational point that if Jesus died for all then all are personally justified (faith being irrelevant; it just doesn't matter if you rely/apply/apprehend that death or just spit in His face, denounce and repudiate Him and the Cross). IF you agree with Dave there, then either the Bible lies when it says Jesus died for all OR the Bible lies when it indicates that not all are personally justified. Of course, the Bible is not wrong in either, he's wrong by repudiating faith.

I can't speak for Dave, I haven't been following his posts.

Of course, no one here denies that. It just has nothing to do with the discussion. It doesn't make your point that no Apostle said "Jesus died for all"(Universal Atonement) in the Book of Acts (but obviously did several did in other books of the Bible) OR said, "Jesus did NOT die for all but ONLY, SOLELY, EXCLUSIVELY for some unknown few" (nor in any other book of the Bible).

'Jesus is the God/man' was to counter your pulling the 'Apostle Card' (even though all Scripture is inspired by God).

A couple of interesting translations...

Contemporary English Version
I am the good shepherd, and the good shepherd gives up his life for his sheep.

Douay-Rheims Bible
I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd giveth his life for his sheep.

The issue is THIS:

Does the Bible state that Jesus DIED for all people (Universal Atonement)
OR
Does the Bible state that Jesus did NOT die foe all but ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY for some unknown few (Limited Atonement)


Did you read post 428? If so, do you have any questions about what is written there?

As stated in my post above, looking for ONE verse to prove a point is futile and poor exegesis, one must take the Scripture as a whole. Doing that, I lean towards limited atonement, but am not a dyed in the wool TULIPer, if that makes sense.