Why Universal Atonement is Pelagianism.

[1689Dave]

@1689Dave

Here's what CALVIN said about that.

Heb 9:24-28

Scroll down to verse 28. And see where CALVIN says that "many" means all. CALVIN was right about this, I agree with Calvin, it's those radical, extreme, latter-day guys you echo who disagree with Calvin (and Scripture).

Here's what CALVIN said about the Hebrew verse, "To bear, or, take away sins, is to free from guilt by his satisfaction those who have sinned. He says the sins of many, that is, of all, as in Romans 5:15. It is yet certain that all receive no benefit from the death of Christ; but this happens, because their unbelief prevents them." We are in complete agreement with CALVIN there, you of course are not.

Thanks to Origen for pointing this out....



.

Did you know Calvin did not teach Limited Atonement? It was Luther I believe taught it first, And finally the Synod of Dort in their 5 points of Calvinism. Which is buggy in points 4 & 5. Those points reflect universal atonement instead, being logically disjoined from the first three points that are flawlessly stated as what scripture teaches.

 

[Josiah]

Did you know Calvin did not teach Limited Atonement?

I did know that.

I also know that Scripture not just teaches but VERBATIM states the exact opposite of it, that Jesus died for all.

It was Luther I believe taught it first,

While some radical Calvinist (who taught the exact opposite of Calvin on this point) "believe" Catholic Luther taught something like that, in 1515. But of course, as everyone knows, what Luther said early is pretty irrelevant. As everyone knows, Luther's transition happens over perhaps a decade, which is why scholars always are very careful to date the quote. The source you got that snippet from knew it was from 1515 (2 years before Luther's transformation even begins) and so didn't give the date. I quoted from Luther on this in 1533 and it is CLEAR and OBVIOUS that, like Calvin, he too believed that the Bible is correct on this point, as is the church council, the church fathers and 1500+ years of Christian faith. Luther clearly echoed the Bible: Jesus died for all.

And finally the Synod of Dort in their 5 points of Calvinism. Wich is buggy in points 4 & 5. Those points reflect universal atonement instead, being logically disjoined from the first three points that are flawlessly stated as what scripture teaches.

Yes, those radial Calvinists - who actually opposed and contradicted Calvin on this point too - made a "logical disjoined" statement, to contradict not only Scripture, the Church Fathers, the Church Council, 1500+ years of Christianity and the verbatim actual undeniable words of God in His Scriptures, but also Calvin himself.

And your defense of their opposition to Calvin and Scripture and all the rest is:
1. Noting that you have not one verse that states what you do
2. A long list of logical fallacies
3. An apologetic that insists that questions are substantiation.



.

 

[1689Dave]

I did know that.

I also know that Scripture not just teaches but VERBATIM states the exact opposite of it, that Jesus died for all.






While some radical Calvinist (who taught the exact opposite of Calvin on this point) "believe" Catholic Luther taught something like that, in 1515. But of course, as everyone knows, what Luther said early is pretty irrelevant. As everyone knows, Luther's transition happens over perhaps a decade, which is why scholars always are very careful to date the quote. I quoted from Luther on this in 1533 and it is CLEAR and OBVIOUS that, like Calvin, he too believed that the Bible is correct on this point, as is the church council, the church fathers and 1500+ years of Christian faith. Luther clearly echoed the Bible: Jesus died for all.





Yes, those radial Calvinists - who actually opposed and contradicted Calvin on this point too - made a "logical disjoined" statement, to contradict not only Scripture, the Church Fathers, the Church Council, 1500+ years of Christianity and the verbatim actual undeniable words of God in His Scriptures, but also Calvin himself.

And your defense of their opposition to Calvin and Scripture and all the rest is:
1. Noting that you have not one verse that states what you do
2. A long list of logical fallacies
3. An apologetic that insists that questions are substantiation.



.

But you still ignore my Pharisee's situation where Christ did not die for them. Or the major passages that use MANY limiting World, and All in the numbers of people he died for or are saved.

 

[Albion]

Thats a contradiction. If you say everyone was objectively forgiven at the Cross because of Jesus death for them, how then say they can be lost because of their rejection of Christ ? Thats saying what they do, trumps what Christs death did. Besides, their rejection of Him should have been objectively forgiven at the Cross, for its nothing short of sin.

That's just ignorance of the concept we call Universal Atonement.

Christ paid the price for the human race which until then had no chance of salvation. But he didn't make it a guarantee of salvation, come what may, since all of us have lives to lead and options concerning whether to follow Christ or not! That's about as basic as anything concerning the Christian religion is.

 

[Josiah]

If you say everyone was objectively forgiven at the Cross because of Jesus death for them,

@brightfame52


No one does.

Here are the two views that Dave keeps bringing up - over and over and over - whether the thread has anything to do with it or not.

They are:

1. Jesus died for all people
2. Jesus did NOT die for all but ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY for some unknown few


The monikers:

Some radical, latter-day Calvinists who actually denounced and disageed with Calvin on this point invented view #2 and also the monikers for these two views. THEY named #1 "Universal Atonement" and #2 "Limited Atonement" and those are the terms Dave insists we use. If you think they are inaccurate or misleading, blame those radical Calvinists who denounced Calvin for it, they invented them.

As he has been told - MANY times, over many weeks, in numerous threads, the early Christians, the Church Council, the Orthodox Church, the Catholic Church, the Anglican Church, the Lutheran Church and more teach that Jesus died for all BUT they never use these anti-Calvin guys invented monikers. I stated the Catholic embrace of this in CCC 605 and noted it just states the view, not the Calvinist name for it. And I quoted the Lutheran Confessions and noted they don't use either of these monikers. Someone quoeted the Church Council on this and noted it didn't use either moniker. Don't like the names? Don't blame us. The radicals Dave echoes did.



Here are the two views.


1. Jesus died for all people.

Here are just a few of the Scriptures that state this view. The view echos them, verbatim.

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

2 Corinthians 5:15 And he died for all

1 Timothy 2:6 Who gave himself as a ransom for all.

There are many more.

+ This view does NOT hold that all individuals are thus forgiven or that all have personal justification since that requires a second aspect, the divine gift of faith. BOTH the CROSS and FAITH are necessary for personal justification and personal forgiveness (not ONLY the Cross ALONG). And both the Cross and Faith are 100% the work and gift of God and together they bring justification (narrow sense) to the individual. The teaching is "Jesus died for all" is NOT "all have forgiveness and personal salvation".

It is the view of the Orthodox Church, the Catholic Church, the Anglican Church, and nearly all other denominations and faith communities. It was declared doctine by a Church Council in the 9th Century.


2. No, Jesus did NOT die for all people but ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY for some unknown few.

Here are the Scriptures that state this view:

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 Mustangs, ergo Ford ONLY makes Mustangs." Or "Bob loves his wife, ergo he ONLY loves his wife and not his kids." Even my four year old son can see the absurdity of the logical fallacy radical, extremist Calvinists use as their apologetic for this invention. The whole apologetic has not one Scripture that states their point. It's based entirely on a logical fallacy.

+ And of course if this horrible invention 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).

Radical Calvinists invented this dogma in response to Arminianists (who embrace some forms of synergism and Pelagianism) and necessitates the opposition having those views. It doesn't work at all on people who aren't Arminianists. It's based on NOT ONE VERSE in Scripture (so much for Sola Scriptura) and on a fallacy that permits them to INSERT the word "only" into texts, the logical fallacy that is the entire basis of their apologetic is like this: "Ford makes Mustangs, ergo Ford ONLY makes Mustangs." Their entire apologetic rests on this logical fallacy. And the absence of any Scripture that states it.




.

 

[brightfame52]

That's just ignorance of the concept we call Universal Atonement.

Christ paid the price for the human race which until then had no chance of salvation. But he didn't make it a guarantee of salvation, come what may, since all of us have lives to lead and options concerning whether to follow Christ or not! That's about as basic as anything concerning the Christian religion is.

This stuff makes no sense. Still in contradiction

 

[Albion]

This stuff makes no sense. Still in contradiction

Well, it does make sense. Why cannot God have done something that was neither giving a blank check to every human OR pick out a relatively small number of sinners to save and just decree it?

Those are the other choices. Frankly, I don't see either of them as being all that terrific.
Or just.
Or merciful.

One thing is certain, however. It is that Dave's theory that Pelagianism means you'd "save yourself" is historically incorrect.

I showed, somewhere in the first thousand (!) posts we've had on this topic, that Pelagius did not believe in Original Sin BUT did believe that everything the individual does in his life that is meritorious in God's eyes was made possible only because of Jesus Christ helping us, setting forth a moral code we can choose to follow instead of some other one like, for instance, that of the Roman Pagans, and of course also by Christ's own life and death on Earth. So the idea that we "save ourselves" according to Pelagius is simply uninformed.

 

[Josiah]

This stuff makes no sense. Still in contradiction

@brightfame52


Will all DUE respect, I don't think it matters if something "makes sense" to fallen, limited, human brains. To me, what matters is if God says it's true.

And God clearly, verbatim, flat-out, in black-and-white words, repeatedly says Jesus died for all people.

And God clearly, verbatim, flat-out, in black-and-white words, repeatedly says that faith is essential for personal justification.

So, it seems TWO things are needed: Christ's redemptive work and personal faith that apprehends/applies/trusts in that for us.

And both are stated to be the work and gift of God.

While His death is for all, it seems His gift of faith is not for all.

Thus, not all are personally justified.



Here are the two positions radical, anti-Calvinists want to talk about....

1. Jesus died for all people.

Here are just a few of the Scriptures that state this view. The view echos them, verbatim

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

2 Corinthians 5:15 And he died for all

1 Timothy 2:6 Who gave himself as a ransom for all.

and many more just like the above.

+ This view does NOT hold that all individuals have personal justification since that requires a second aspect, the divine gift of faith. BOTH the CROSS and FAITH are 100% the work and gift of God and together they bring justification (narrow sense) to the individual.

+ The Catholic Church, Lutheran Church and Anglican churches have condemned Pelagianism and all its forms (it's a tad fuzzy in the EOC, lol) So this teaching does not hold that we save ourselves, it does not denounce original sin, it does not repudiate faith. It states this: Jesus died for all. It echos those words from the Bible. It doesn't explain anything, it doesn't deny anything, it affirms one point: Jesus died for all.

It is the view of Martin Luther (after 1517) and of John Calvin. It is the view of the Orthodox Church, the Catholic Church, the Anglican Church, THE Lutheran Church and nearly all other denominations and faith communities. It was declared doctine by a Church Council in the 9th Century.


2. No, Jesus did NOT die for all people but ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY for some unknown few.

Here are the Scriptures that state this view:

Crickets.

+ There is a verse that says "Jesus died for the Elect" but none that say ONLY for the Elect. There is a verse that says He died for "His sheep (and others that He must make His sheep) but it doesn't say ONLY for His present and future sheep. 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 Mustangs, ergo Ford ONLY makes Mustangs." Or "Bob loves his wife, ergo he ONLY loves his wife and not his kids." Even my four year old son can see the absurdity of the logical fallacy radical, extremist Calvinists use as their apologetic for this invention. The whole apologetic has not one Scripture that states their point. It's based entirely on a logical fallacy.

+ And of course if this horrible invention 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).

Radical Calvinists invented this dogma in response to Arminianists (who embrace some forms of synergism and Pelagianism) and necessitates the opposition having those views. It doesn't work at all on people who aren't Arminianists. It's based on NOT ONE VERSE in Scripture (so much for Sola Scriptura) and on a fallacy that permits them to INSERT the word "only" into texts, the logical fallacy that is the entire basis of their apologetic is like this: "Ford makes Mustangs, ergo Ford ONLY makes Mustangs." Their entire apologetic rests on this logical fallacy. And the absence of any Scripture that states it.





.

 

[Lamb]

Here's another way of looking at this:

If a king makes a declaration in favor of the people of his kingdom and they don't know about it, does it benefit them? So now, what if that declaration was that we are no longer at war (just as example, and examples are always poor), and the subjects of the kingdom refuse to accept the declaration. Does it benefit them if they keep trying to fight?

God made the declaration that we are objectively justified by Christ's death. But in His plan, He sends out men to go forth and proclaim that Gospel, because it does not benefit them unless they receive it by grace through faith.

 

[1689Dave]

@brightfame52


No one does.

Here are the two views that Dave keeps bringing up - over and over and over - whether the thread has anything to do with it or not.

They are:

1. Jesus died for all people
2. Jesus did NOT die for all but ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY for some unknown few


The monikers:

Some radical, latter-day Calvinists who actually denounced and disageed with Calvin on this point invented view #2 and also the monikers for these two views. THEY named #1 "Universal Atonement" and #2 "Limited Atonement" and those are the terms Dave insists we use. If you think they are inaccurate or misleading, blame those radical Calvinists who denounced Calvin for it, they invented them.

As he has been told - MANY times, over many weeks, in numerous threads, the early Christians, the Church Council, the Orthodox Church, the Catholic Church, the Anglican Church, the Lutheran Church and more teach that Jesus died for all BUT they never use these anti-Calvin guys invented monikers. I stated the Catholic embrace of this in CCC 605 and noted it just states the view, not the Calvinist name for it. And I quoted the Lutheran Confessions and noted they don't use either of these monikers. Someone quoeted the Church Council on this and noted it didn't use either moniker. Don't like the names? Don't blame us. The radicals Dave echoes did.



Here are the two views.


1. Jesus died for all people.

Here are just a few of the Scriptures that state this view. The view echos them, verbatim.

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

2 Corinthians 5:15 And he died for all

1 Timothy 2:6 Who gave himself as a ransom for all.

There are many more.

+ This view does NOT hold that all individuals are thus forgiven or that all have personal justification since that requires a second aspect, the divine gift of faith. BOTH the CROSS and FAITH are necessary for personal justification and personal forgiveness (not ONLY the Cross ALONG). And both the Cross and Faith are 100% the work and gift of God and together they bring justification (narrow sense) to the individual. The teaching is "Jesus died for all" is NOT "all have forgiveness and personal salvation".

It is the view of the Orthodox Church, the Catholic Church, the Anglican Church, and nearly all other denominations and faith communities. It was declared doctine by a Church Council in the 9th Century.


2. No, Jesus did NOT die for all people but ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY for some unknown few.

Here are the Scriptures that state this view:

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 Mustangs, ergo Ford ONLY makes Mustangs." Or "Bob loves his wife, ergo he ONLY loves his wife and not his kids." Even my four year old son can see the absurdity of the logical fallacy radical, extremist Calvinists use as their apologetic for this invention. The whole apologetic has not one Scripture that states their point. It's based entirely on a logical fallacy.

+ And of course if this horrible invention 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).

Radical Calvinists invented this dogma in response to Arminianists (who embrace some forms of synergism and Pelagianism) and necessitates the opposition having those views. It doesn't work at all on people who aren't Arminianists. It's based on NOT ONE VERSE in Scripture (so much for Sola Scriptura) and on a fallacy that permits them to INSERT the word "only" into texts, the logical fallacy that is the entire basis of their apologetic is like this: "Ford makes Mustangs, ergo Ford ONLY makes Mustangs." Their entire apologetic rests on this logical fallacy. And the absence of any Scripture that states it.




.

Jesus did not die for all people. God damned the Pharisees so they could not be saved.

“But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him: That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again, 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. These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him.” John 12:37–41 (KJV 1900)

All were damned but a remnant of Israel In the OT.

 

[brightfame52]

Well, it does make sense. Why cannot God have done something that was neither giving a blank check to every human OR pick out a relatively small number of sinners to save and just decree it?

Those are the other choices. Frankly, I don't see either of them as being all that terrific.
Or just.
Or merciful.

One thing is certain, however. It is that Dave's theory that Pelagianism means you'd "save yourself" is historically incorrect.

I showed, somewhere in the first thousand (!) posts we've had on this topic, that Pelagius did not believe in Original Sin BUT did believe that everything the individual does in his life that is meritorious in God's eyes was made possible only because of Jesus Christ helping us, setting forth a moral code we can choose to follow instead of some other one like, for instance, that of the Roman Pagans, and of course also by Christ's own life and death on Earth. So the idea that we "save ourselves" according to Pelagius is simply uninformed.

Lol, It may make sense to you, I see it as a ball of confusion.

 

[brightfame52]

Here's another way of looking at this:

If a king makes a declaration in favor of the people of his kingdom and they don't know about it, does it benefit them? So now, what if that declaration was that we are no longer at war (just as example, and examples are always poor), and the subjects of the kingdom refuse to accept the declaration. Does it benefit them if they keep trying to fight?

God made the declaration that we are objectively justified by Christ's death. But in His plan, He sends out men to go forth and proclaim that Gospel, because it does not benefit them unless they receive it by grace through faith.

More confusion. Those who are objectively Justified by the blood of Christ are Justified forever, even though they dont know it. However because they are Justified before God, God promised they shall live by Faith Rom 1:17

17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

So sometime in their life God regenerates them, and then brings them under the preaching of the Gospel and gives them Faith and Repentance.

 

[Albion]

Lol, It may make sense to you, I see it as a ball of confusion.

Then let's just leave it at that. I and others explained the theology involved, but you are confused nonetheless.

What's the next topic we might discuss??

 

[Josiah]

Here's another way of looking at this:

If a king makes a declaration in favor of the people of his kingdom and they don't know about it, does it benefit them? So now, what if that declaration was that we are no longer at war (just as example, and examples are always poor), and the subjects of the kingdom refuse to accept the declaration. Does it benefit them if they keep trying to fight?

God made the declaration that we are objectively justified by Christ's death. But in His plan, He sends out men to go forth and proclaim that Gospel, because it does not benefit them unless they receive it by grace through faith

Dave's newest ploy to evade the issue here is to declare that the moniker the radical anti-Calvinists he echos gave to our position implies that all are personally justified. He knows this is false but.....

We AGREE with Calvin, the Bible, the Church Council, the Church Fathers, the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, the Anglican Church, the Lutheran Church and 2000 years of Christianity that Jesus died for all, but not all have personal justification since not all have faith.

But Dave needs to insist the the moniker his heroes gave to that position ("universal atonement") is that Jesus died for all and thus all have personal justification whether or not they have faith. He knows that's not our position, that's false but.....


This kind of profound, INTENTIONAL lying is well.....




.

 

[Josiah]

Jesus did not die for all people.

@1689Dave


So, God in Scripture is wrong. Okay.

And you can't quote a single Scripture that states what you do, but that's irrelevant to you. Dogma, it seems to you, rests entirely on the opposite of what the Bible so often states.

“But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him: That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again, 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. These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him.” John 12:37–41 (KJV 1900)

Red herring.

This has to do with FAITH, not the CROSS. Never does the above even mention Jesus' death. Nowhere does it state, "Jesus did not die for the Pharisees." You proved it.

No one here denies that faith is not given to all. But that's not the issue, as you very well know. The issue is which does the Bible state: Jesus died for all OR does it state, "Jesus did NOT die for all but ONLY, SOLELY, EXCLUSIVELY for some unknown few."




.

 

[brightfame52]

Then let's just leave it at that. I and others explained the theology involved, but you are confused nonetheless.

What's the next topic we might discuss??

We will leave at that.

 

[1689Dave]

@1689Dave


So, God in Scripture is wrong. Okay.

And you can't quote a single Scripture that states what you do, but that's irrelevant to you. Dogma, it seems to you, rests entirely on the opposite of what the Bible so often states.






Red herring.

This has to do with FAITH, not the CROSS. Never does the above even mention Jesus' death. Nowhere does it state, "Jesus did not die for the Pharisees." You proved it.

No one here denies that faith is not given to all. But that's not the issue, as you very well know. The issue is which does the Bible state: Jesus died for all OR does it state, "Jesus did NOT die for all but ONLY, SOLELY, EXCLUSIVELY for some unknown few."




.

Jesus said they do not believe because he did not die for them. If Christ paid for their sins, God owes Him their salvation.

 

[Lamb]

Jesus said they do not believe because he did not die for them. If Christ paid for their sins, God owes Him their salvation.

God made a declaration that Christ died for all...then God told men to go out and preach that Good News so that they might come to faith, believing in Jesus as their Savior for the forgiveness of their sins. In other words, subjectively be justified.

 

[Lamb]

More confusion. Those who are objectively Justified by the blood of Christ are Justified forever, even though they dont know it. However because they are Justified before God, God promised they shall live by Faith Rom 1:17

17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

So sometime in their life God regenerates them, and then brings them under the preaching of the Gospel and gives them Faith and Repentance.

Objectively justified but subjective justification is necessary for men to benefit from the declaration made by that objective justification that Christ died for all.

 

[Josiah]

Jesus said they do not believe because he did not die for them.

Well, then just quote the verse that states, "Jesus did not die for them." Or repent for the violation of the commandment against bearing false witness.



.