Why Universal Atonement is Pelagianism.

[1689Dave]

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.



.

Jesus said he gives his life for the sheep, True or false?

He then says you do not believe because you are not my sheep, true or false?

When combined did he say they do not believe because he did not die for them because they are not his sheep? in essence, true or false?

 

[Josiah]

Jesus said he gives his life for the sheep, True or false?

True.

Jesus did not say ONLY for the sheep. Yes or No?

If I posted "Ford makes Mustangs" does that prove that ergo Ford ONLY makes Mustangs? Yes or no?

If I posted "I love my wife" does that prove that ergo I ONLY love my wife and I don't love my kids? Yes or No?



You stated, "Jesus said they do not believe because he did not die for them."

Did you tell the truth, Jesus said "I did not die for them" Did Jesus say that? Yes or No?

When you said He said something but you prove He did not, is that lying? Yes or No?

When you tell a falsehood, should you repent for that? Yes or No?

He then says you do not believe because you are not my sheep, true or false?

True. Now stop the red herring. This topic is not about faith, it's about Christ's death. Stop trying to change the topic just because you have nothing to support your horrible, anti-Calvin invention.



Here are the two views you keep 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" If you think they are inaccurate or misleading, blame those radical Calvinists who denounced Calvin for it, they invented them.

As you have 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 you echo 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".

This view does not deny original sin, it is this: "Jesus died for all people."
This view does not state that everyone saves themselves, it states this: "Jesus died for all people"
This view does not deny faith and insist that since Christ died for all thus all are saved, it states this: "Jesus died for all people."

It is the view of the Orthodox Church, the Catholic Church, the Anglican Church, the Lutheran Church, John Calvin, 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.




.

 

[1689Dave]

True.

Jesus did not say ONLY for the sheep. Yes or no?

If I posted "Ford makes Mustangs" does that prove that ergo Ford ONLY makes Mustangs? Yes or no?

If I posted "I love my wife" does that prove that ergo I don't love my kids? Yes or No?


You stated

He said he gives his life for the sheep, yes or no?

All of the saved are his sheep. Yes or no?

 

[Josiah]

He said he gives his life for the sheep, yes or no?

Jesus did not say ONLY for the sheep. Yes or No?

If I posted "Ford makes Mustangs" does that prove that ergo Ford ONLY makes Mustangs? Yes or no?

If I posted "I love my wife" does that prove that ergo I ONLY love my wife and I don't love my kids? Yes or No?



You stated, "Jesus said they do not believe because he did not die for them."

Did you tell the truth,did Jesus state, "I did not die for them" Did Jesus say that? Yes or No?

When you said He said something but you prove He did not, is that lying? Yes or No?

When you tell a falsehood, should you repent for that? Yes or No?

1689Dave said:


He then says you do not believe because you are not my sheep, true or false?

True. Now stop the red herring. This topic is not about faith, it's about Christ's death. Stop trying to change the topic just because you have nothing to support your horrible, anti-Calvin invention.



Here are the two views you keep 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" If you think they are inaccurate or misleading, blame those radical Calvinists who denounced Calvin for it, they invented them.

As you have 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 you echo 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".

This view does not deny original sin, it is this: "Jesus died for all people."
This view does not state that everyone saves themselves, it states this: "Jesus died for all people"
This view does not deny faith and insist that since Christ died for all thus all are saved, it states this: "Jesus died for all people."

It is the view of the Orthodox Church, the Catholic Church, the Anglican Church, the Lutheran Church, John Calvin, 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.




.

 

[1689Dave]

Jesus did not say ONLY for the sheep. Yes or No?

If I posted "Ford makes Mustangs" does that prove that ergo Ford ONLY makes Mustangs? Yes or no?

If I posted "I love my wife" does that prove that ergo I ONLY love my wife and I don't love my kids? Yes or No?



You stated, "Jesus said they do not believe because he did not die for them."

Did you tell the truth,did Jesus state, "I did not die for them" Did Jesus say that? Yes or No?

When you said He said something but you prove He did not, is that lying? Yes or No?

When you tell a falsehood, should you repent for that? Yes or No?







True. Now stop the red herring. This topic is not about faith, it's about Christ's death. Stop trying to change the topic just because you have nothing to support your horrible, anti-Calvin invention.



Here are the two views you keep 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" If you think they are inaccurate or misleading, blame those radical Calvinists who denounced Calvin for it, they invented them.

As you have 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 you echo 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".

This view does not deny original sin, it is this: "Jesus died for all people."
This view does not state that everyone saves themselves, it states this: "Jesus died for all people"
This view does not deny faith and insist that since Christ died for all thus all are saved, it states this: "Jesus died for all people."

It is the view of the Orthodox Church, the Catholic Church, the Anglican Church, the Lutheran Church, John Calvin, 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.




.

face it, the sheep are the saved whom he died for. All you have left are the tares he damned to hell for his glory.

 

[Josiah]

the sheep are the saved whom he died for.

Yes, He died for those who have faith. NO ONE IS DISPUTING THAT. All here - all of us, everyone of us - AGREES with John 10 and 12 and every other verse you referenced and all those you repudiate. All true. Every one of them.

And none of them state what you do, that He died ONLY for those. That He did NOT die for all as is so often stated in Scripture but rather ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY for some unknown few. You've not presented one Scripture that states that, as everyone here knows.


Jesus did not say ONLY for the sheep. Yes or No?

If I posted "Ford makes Mustangs" does that prove that ergo Ford ONLY makes Mustangs? Yes or no?

If I posted "I love my wife" does that prove that ergo I ONLY love my wife and I don't love my kids? Yes or No?

You are basing your entire apologetic on a silly logical fallacy that even middle school debaters wouldn't use.

1689Dave said:


He then says you do not believe because you are not my sheep, true or false?

Stop the red herring. This topic is not about faith, it's about Christ's death. Stop trying to change the topic just because you have nothing to support your horrible, anti-Calvin invention.

You stated, "Jesus said you do not believe because you are not my sheep."

Did Jesus say that.... or did you tell a falsehood?

Those of us, 4 and over, who can read know the answer. So do you.

When someone violates the Commandment of "Thou shalt not bear false witness" should they repent?




Here are the two views you keep 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" If you think they are inaccurate or misleading, blame those radical Calvinists who denounced Calvin for it, they invented them.

As you have 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 you echo 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".

This view does not deny original sin, it is this: "Jesus died for all people." No Pelagianism.
This view does not state that everyone saves themselves, it states this: "Jesus died for all people" No Pelagianism.
This view does not deny faith and insist that since Christ died for all thus all are saved, it states this: "Jesus died for all people." No Pelagianism.

It is the view of the Orthodox Church, the Catholic Church, the Anglican Church, the Lutheran Church, John Calvin, 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.




.

 

[1689Dave]

Yes, He died for those who have faith. NO ONE IS DISPUTING THAT. All here - all of us, everyone of us - AGREES with John 10 and 12 and every other verse you referenced. All true. Every one of them.

And none of them state what you do, that He died ONLY for those. That He did NOT die for all as is so often stated in Scripture but rather ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY for some unknown few. You've not presented one Scripture that states that, as everyone here knows.



You stated, "Jesus said you do not believe because you are not my sheep."

Did Jesus say that.... or did you tell a falsehood?

Those of us, 4 and over, who can read know the answer. So do you.

When someone violates the Commandment of "Thou shalt not bear false witness" should they repent?



Jesus did not say ONLY for the sheep. Yes or No?

If I posted "Ford makes Mustangs" does that prove that ergo Ford ONLY makes Mustangs? Yes or no?

If I posted "I love my wife" does that prove that ergo I ONLY love my wife and I don't love my kids? Yes or No?



You stated, "Jesus said they do not believe because he did not die for them."

Did you tell the truth, Jesus said "I did not die for them" Did Jesus say that? Yes or No?

When you said He said something but you prove He did not, is that lying? Yes or No?

When you tell a falsehood, should you repent for that? Yes or No?







True. Now stop the red herring. This topic is not about faith, it's about Christ's death. Stop trying to change the topic just because you have nothing to support your horrible, anti-Calvin invention.



Here are the two views you keep 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" If you think they are inaccurate or misleading, blame those radical Calvinists who denounced Calvin for it, they invented them.

As you have 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 you echo 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".

This view does not deny original sin, it is this: "Jesus died for all people." No Pelagianism.
This view does not state that everyone saves themselves, it states this: "Jesus died for all people" No Pelagianism.
This view does not deny faith and insist that since Christ died for all thus all are saved, it states this: "Jesus died for all people." No Pelagianism.

It is the view of the Orthodox Church, the Catholic Church, the Anglican Church, the Lutheran Church, John Calvin, 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.




.

You have a huge smokescreen, writing volumes that nobody can bear to read, At least I can't. But it tells me you are desperate and cannot speak in a few words the truth of the matter.

 

[brightfame52]

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

All who are objectively Justified shall be subjectively Justifed. I just showed you the promise for the objectively Justified 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.

 

[Josiah]

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

Friend, the topic here is not faith.
We agree that we are justified by the Work of Christ received by faith.

Let's turn to the issue of dispute:

Is Scripture correct when it states (so often, verbatim, flat-out, in black-and-white words) that Jesus died for all? OR is that incorrect, and Jesus did NOT die for all (the opposite of those many Scriptures is true) but ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY for some unknown few? THAT, brother, is the issue of dispute (well, with one or two).

OF COURSE, only those with faith receive and benefit from that death - as we've been saying since the very first posts on this topic; of course His righteousness is revealed from faith to faith - faith receives and believes and accepts and applies and apprehends that - and thus is ours, applied to the individual, "personal justification" (or "subjective justification") as it is called in theology. Just because the Bible is right when it proclaims that Christ died for all does NOT mean it is wrong when it teaches that not all have faith, and that BOTH are necessary for personal justification.



.

 

[Lamb]

All who are objectively Justified shall be subjectively Justifed. I just showed you the promise for the objectively Justified 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.

Subjectively can only happen "by grace through faith" as the bible describes.

 

[1689Dave]

Friend, the topic here is not faith.
We agree that we are justified by the Work of Christ received by faith.

Let's turn to the issue of dispute:

Is Scripture correct when it states (so often, verbatim, flat-out, in black-and-white words) that Jesus died for all? OR is that incorrect, and Jesus did NOT die for all (the opposite of those many Scriptures is true) but ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY for some unknown few? THAT, brother, is the issue of dispute (well, with one or two).

OF COURSE, only those with faith receive and benefit from that death - as we've been saying since the very first posts on this topic; of course His righteousness is revealed from faith to faith - faith receives and believes and accepts and applies and apprehends that - and thus is ours, applied to the individual, "personal justification" (or "subjective justification") as it is called in theology. Just because the Bible is right when it proclaims that Christ died for all does NOT mean it is wrong when it teaches that not all have faith, and that BOTH are necessary for personal justification.



.

If Christ paid for everyone's sin, why are so many in hell?

 

[Lamb]

If Christ paid for everyone's sin, why are so many in hell?

Because they reject that forgiveness and don't receive it.

 

[1689Dave]

Because they reject that forgiveness and don't receive it.

They are dead and cannot hear God speak. They only worship idols they call God at best.

 

[Josiah]

If Christ paid for everyone's sin, why are so many in hell?

That's all you got....

1. NOT one Scripture that states your position, many that verbatim state the EXACT OPPOSITE of your view.
2. Logical fallacies (silly ones at that)
3. Questions, thinking that questions are substantiation.
4. The heresy that the Cross alone - without faith - results in personal justification.

Oh, and ENDLESS red herrings - constantly changing the subject (for example, because you correctly note that God gives faith, ERGO you insist Jesus did not die for all - another logical fallacy)



I'll help you, Dave (not that you'll read this)....

1. MANY Calvinists have told me that VERY, VERY few accept the "L" as you've presented it. Rather, they accept what Calvin and the great majority of Calvinists have always accepted: Jesus died for all but this only benefits the Elect for only the Elect are given faith. It is sufficient for all but not efficacious for all since the later requires that. That is, of course, the position you rebuke.


2. There are no that teach what you do; honest apologists of your position freely admit that. They don't engage in your logical fallacies and falsehoods. RATHER, they make a "logical extension" of the view that God does not desire all to be saved (as Scripture flat out states) but wants most to fry in hell - thus, it seems nonsensical for Jesus to die for most people since God wants them to fry in hell, thus He did not die for most. They have no Scripture to support this... nothing from History.... nothing from the Fathers... nothing from Church Councils... nothing from Calvin... but it "makes sense to them." It flows from their wrong idea about Predestination and their denial of the verse that states God desires all to be saved. IMO, it's n absurdly weak apologetic.... and a really bad way to do theology, to found it on NO Scripture (and flat out contradicted by several)... with NOTHING from History, the Fathers, the Councils, or 1500 years of belief.

I don't know what site or book you are copying/pasting from.... but it's the silliest, most illogical stuff I've heard on this subject (my 4 year old wouldn't buy this). All you have is proof that Scripture doesn't state your view, a LOT of logical fallacies, and the crazy idea that questions are apologetics, that questions substantiate anything. You may copy/paste from such ...but you should THINK about it before you do so, because it reflects NOT on them (you've never credited your sources) but on YOU. Besides, I'm pretty sure you're misapplying the stuff - I'm pretty sure it's meant for Arminianists (and no one discussing this with you is such so none of it works; you're misapplying it).



.

 

[brightfame52]

Subjectively can only happen "by grace through faith" as the bible describes.

I know how it occurs. Yet to be objectively Justified is to be declared righteous before God. So technically to be objectively Justified one is already saved from their sins.

 

[brightfame52]

Because they reject that forgiveness and don't receive it.

Christ paid for their sins of rejection and unbelief, and God has accepted His Payment for their sins, and so it is God who Justifies.

 

[Josiah]

I know how it occurs. Yet to be objectively Justified is to be declared righteous before God. So technically to be objectively Justified one is already saved from their sins.

@brightfame52


In a sense you are absolutely correct.

In classical theology, this is called "Objective Justification." It means what Jesus' atoning work (His life, death and resurrection - all His atoning work) is accomplished, it is REAL, it is THERE, it EXISTS, it is OBJECTIVELY true and real and there. It's not a dream, it is not wishful thinking, one does NOT need to HOPE it's "there" and actual and real and not a phantom that you can WISH is actual but probably isn't (as Limited Atonement insists it usually is). No, Jesus REALLY accomplished it. It's REAL. It's there. Objectively. Paul speaks much of this. But this needs to be applied to the individual, it must have a personal subject (in classical theology, this is called Subjective Justification) for this to benefit a given individual. This is accomplished via the divine gift of faith. This faith in His work applies that work to ME, it apprehends it (the word usually used in theology), trusts it, relies on it. And thus I benefit from it - it becomes MINE. In classical theology, BOTH the Cross and the Faith are the gift and work of God (not of self, not even in part). BOTH are needed for an individual to have PERSONAL justification (subjective justification). Thus, the Bible speaks of personal justification as a result of "faith in Christ."

Let me use this (admittedly flawed) illustration: My son wants a train set. It costs $200.00 including shipping and taxes. So I PAY that, I EARN that, I ACCOMPLISH that.... I PAY the $200.00. I have the gift certificant. It's REAL, It's OBJECTIVE. It's THERE. Not a phantom, not a wish, not a hope, not a possibility... it's THERE, all paid for by me. And I give it to him. But he never uses it, never applies it, never relies on it. It thus doesn't benefit him - the train is never personally his. Now... the illustration falls down because for it to be completely accurate, I'd need to cause my son to trust it. But here's the point Lamb was (accurately, correctly) making: Justification IS real. It IS there. It IS paid for. It is OBJECTIVE. The mistake Dave is making is that faith is irrelevant, unnecessary, does nothing. And that's not true. It is OBJECTIVELY true (as Paul will stress and radical Calvinists will deny) but not SUBJECTIVELY benefiting since without faith that apprehends/applies it, it does not bring forgiveness or life or justification to ME. Now where Arminianists go wrong is by insisting that faith is something WE do, a reality WE create and give to self - our "part" and our good work. And that's equally wrong, just as wrong as the radical anti-Calvinists who teach Limited Atonement. BOTH are God's doing, God's gift. His death makes it REAL (objective) and faith APPLIES it to the Elect.

A blessed Advent season to you and yours....

- Josiah



.

 

[1689Dave]

That's all you got....

1. NOT one Scripture that states your position, many that verbatim state the EXACT OPPOSITE of your view.
2. Logical fallacies (silly ones at that)
3. Questions, thinking that questions are substantiation.
4. The heresy that the Cross alone - without faith - results in personal justification.

Oh, and ENDLESS red herrings - constantly changing the subject (for example, because you correctly note that God gives faith, ERGO you insist Jesus did not die for all - another logical fallacy)



I'll help you, Dave (not that you'll read this)....

1. MANY Calvinists have told me that VERY, VERY few accept the "L" as you've presented it. Rather, they accept what Calvin and the great majority of Calvinists have always accepted: Jesus died for all but this only benefits the Elect for only the Elect are given faith. It is sufficient for all but not efficacious for all since the later requires that. That is, of course, the position you rebuke.


2. There are no that teach what you do; honest apologists of your position freely admit that. They don't engage in your logical fallacies and falsehoods. RATHER, they make a "logical extension" of the view that God does not desire all to be saved (as Scripture flat out states) but wants most to fry in hell - thus, it seems nonsensical for Jesus to die for most people since God wants them to fry in hell, thus He did not die for most. They have no Scripture to support this... nothing from History.... nothing from the Fathers... nothing from Church Councils... nothing from Calvin... but it "makes sense to them." It flows from their wrong idea about Predestination and their denial of the verse that states God desires all to be saved. IMO, it's n absurdly weak apologetic.... and a really bad way to do theology, to found it on NO Scripture (and flat out contradicted by several)... with NOTHING from History, the Fathers, the Councils, or 1500 years of belief.

I don't know what site or book you are copying/pasting from.... but it's the silliest, most illogical stuff I've heard on this subject (my 4 year old wouldn't buy this). All you have is proof that Scripture doesn't state your view, a LOT of logical fallacies, and the crazy idea that questions are apologetics, that questions substantiate anything. You may copy/paste from such ...but you should THINK about it before you do so, because it reflects NOT on them (you've never credited your sources) but on YOU. Besides, I'm pretty sure you're misapplying the stuff - I'm pretty sure it's meant for Arminianists (and no one discussing this with you is such so none of it works; you're misapplying it).



.

If you cannot speak the truth in a few words, you do not understand your position well enough says Einstein.

 

[1689Dave]

Because they reject that forgiveness and don't receive it.

God hardened their hearts and blinded their eyes and sent them to hell.

 

[Lamb]

If you cannot speak the truth in a few words, you do not understand your position well enough says Einstein.

Please don't attack others.