Jesus died for the sins of the world

[Doran]

The Lord is speaking about himself as the good shepherd; the sheep and sheepfold are incidental to his teaching about himself as the door/gate and the proper entry into the sheepfold. It is a mistake to concentrate too much on sheep and non-sheep when the topic is the shepherd and his role.

Oh... so you just want to gloss over the parts of chapter 10 that you don't like? Okay... I understand.

And, yes, Jesus could have expressed himself differently and made it very clear that the Pharisees were not his sheep because of their unbelief. But he didn't. He did, however, make it abundantly clear that the reason for their unbelief was because they were not God's elect (i.e. Jesus sheep). So, you can play all your word gymnastics that you want but that it what Jesus said. And just as equally important, Jesus did not say that he laid down his life for the goats of the world.

Now, I perceive that you'd fond of retorting with, "Well, Jesus didn't say that he didn't lay down his life for the goats. also" Okay...so let's follow that line of reasoning to its logical conclusion. You're driving to a town called Light and you ask me for directions. I say to you, just keep straight ahead and you'll come to a fork in the road and the sign will point the way. Just bear left. So, you thank me and drive off, and you eventually come to the sign on the left pointing to Light but instead of following the arrow you decide to turn right because there was no sign on the right that said that the town of Light was not in that direction.

You prefer trusting in what isn't revealed instead of what is. Good luck with that...

 

[1689Dave]

Oh... so you just want to gloss over the parts of chapter 10 that you don't like? Okay... I understand.

And, yes, Jesus could have expressed himself differently and made it very clear that the Pharisees were not his sheep because of their unbelief. But he didn't. He did, however, make it abundantly clear that the reason for their unbelief was because they were not God's elect (i.e. Jesus sheep). So, you can play all your word gymnastics that you want but that it what Jesus said. And just as equally important, Jesus did not say that he laid down his life for the goats of the world.

Now, I perceive that you'd fond of retorting with, "Well, Jesus didn't say that he didn't lay down his life for the goats. also" Okay...so let's follow that line of reasoning to its logical conclusion. You're driving to a town called Light and you ask me for directions. I say to you, just keep straight ahead and you'll come to a fork in the road and the sign will point the way. Just bear left. So, you thank me and drive off, and you eventually come to the sign on the left pointing to Light but instead of following the arrow you decide to turn right because there was no sign on the right that said that the town of Light was not in that direction.

You prefer trusting in what isn't revealed instead of what is. Good luck with that...

Do you deny what is revealed? Jn 10 cannot be any more clear. What about the reprobate cursed to damnation by God? These certainly make universal atonement untenable. "vessels of wrath fitted to destruction?" God hardens hearts so people cannot believe?

 

[Albion]

You're driving to a town called Light and you ask me for directions. I say to you, just keep straight ahead and you'll come to a fork in the road and the sign will point the way. Just bear left. So, you thank me and drive off, and you eventually come to the sign on the left pointing to Light but instead of following the arrow you decide to turn right because there was no sign on the right that said that the town of Light was not in that direction.

You prefer trusting in what isn't revealed instead of what is. Good luck with that...

You addressed that reply to someone else, but it seems to me that there's no denying that the one who knows the way to Light (according to your story) gave correct directions to a person who didn't know how to get there beforehand. True or not?

And the fact that the driver didn't get to Light was because of a decision he made, not the one who gave the directions, and that this occurred after the correct directions had been given.

 

[Albion]

But God hates sinners. We were born of Adam as such.

"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?

No, the less convoluted and clearer explanation of the meaning is that God so loved all of humanity that he made eternal life possible for humans. When we look at the verse you quoted as saying "Love not the world," the meaning is no more contrary or confusing than to say that WE should not love worldiness. Most people understand both of those without much difficulty.

"Do not love this world nor the things it offers you,..." is the verse according to the New Living Translation.

 

[Josiah]

Josiah, Jn 10:26 doesn't say anything about "dying"

@Doran


Correct. John 10:26 does not state, "Jesus did not die for all but only, exclusively, solely for some unknown few."

The entire chapter is about faith. "Sheep" are those with faith, "goats" those without it. But it never states that Jesus died only for the sheep; the entire anti-Calvin dogma here is missing in this chapter - and everywhere in Scripture and history.

(Mat 25:31-46).

Nowhere in Matthew 25:31-46 does it state that Jesus did not die for all but only, exclusively, solely for some unknown few. This anti-Calvin dogma is entirely missing that that Scripture. Indeed, from all Scripture and history.

Matthew 25:31-46 repeats the "sheep=believers" "goats = unbelievers" image; and again, FAITH is the issue.

Rev 5:9,

Revelation 5:9 does not state that Jesus did not die for all but only, exclusively, solely for some unknown few. It has nothing to do with that. One could easily see it as implying that He DID die for all people, but the word "all" is missing, just as is the words "not all but only some unknown few."

Mat 20:28, Mt 26:28, Mk 10:45, Mk 14:24, Romans 5:15

Read the passages here. None of them state that Jesus did not die for all but only, exclusively, solely for some unknown few. Indeed it suggests the opposite, although I'd agree that "many" is not identical with "all" but it certainly is not contradictory to it. The word "many" does not mean "not all but only some unknown few."

Mt 26:28

Same as above. This does not state that Jesus did not die for all but only, exclusively, solely for some unknown few. Indeed it suggests the opposite, although I'd agree that "many" is not identical with "all" but it certainly is not contradictory to it.

Rom 5:15, 19

Same as above.

See verse 18 (which you wanted us to skip over)

Isa 53:4-6

It states, "the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all"

True, we can argue about who the "us" is, but this certainly does not state, "The Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of just a few unknown persons."



Consider these:

1 John 2:2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.​

John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Hebrews 2:9 But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

2 Corinthians 5:14 For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all

John 1:29 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

2 Corinthians 5:15 And he died for all

2 Corinthians 5:19 That is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.

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

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.

+ This view simply 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 echos verbatim what God so often stated.

+ It is the view of the Early Church Fathers, of the Orthodox Church, the Catholic Church, the Anglican Church, the Lutheran Church, the Methodist Church, most Baptist churches and Evangelical churches and nearly all other denominations and faith communities. It was declared doctrine by a Church Council in the 9th Century. It was the view of John Calvin.



@Doran

it abundantly clear that the reason for their unbelief was because they were not God's elect (i.e. Jesus sheep).

Okay, but lay aside the circular reasoning. There's nothing here that stated He died ONLY for the Elect.

In fact, see 1 John 2:2, 1 Timothy 2:6, etc.





.

 

[Albion]

What was the reason they did not believe? It was because Jesus didn't die for them according to Jn 10.

...which raises a question.

Is it the case that NO ONE can have observed Jesus, listened to him and watched him and agreed with his moral teachings, etc. and, consequently, believed in him WITHOUT having been created by God to be a disciple (i.e., predestined), all the rest of this aside?

 

[Josiah]

You have it backward. Free Will salvation believers would try to say "they were not his sheep because they did not believe". But Jesus reverses this. He says "they do not believe because they are not his sheep that he died for"

The verse does not say "that he died for."

"Sheep" = those with faith. "Goats" = those without faith. So. the two sentences you constructed are essentially the same: "they were not his sheep because they did not believe" and "they do not believe because they are not his sheep." Same thing.



.

 

[Doran]

Saints, I have maintained from the beginning that there is indeed a sense in which Christ died for "the whole world". It's not in the quantitative sense (i.e. without exception), as some here believe, but rather in the qualitative sense, that is to say that Christ died for all men without distinction -- without regard to race, ethnicity, gender or socioeconomic status. The central passage in the NT that teaches this is in Acts 10 -- a chapter that teaches this important truth on two different levels, which makes this passage all the more significant.

As probably all of us know, Peter had this vision while on a rooftop praying, as he had fell into a trance. The vision, of course, was all these animals -- clean and unclean alike (denoting two qualitative states), and the Lord commanded Peter to "kill and eat" (v. 13). Of course, Peter balked at this. So, the Lord spoke a second time and the Lord said, "What God has made clean, do not call common" (v. 15). Object lesson: Only God can make the unclean clean!

Meanwhile, God sent an angel to a Gentile's house -- a Roman centurion by the name of Cornelius. The angel commanded Cornelius to send men to where Peter was staying and to bring him back. And so he did. The men found Peter, explained to him what was going on and asked him to leave with them as they returned to Cornelius. Peter complied.

Evidently, Cornelius and his household and even his close circle of friends were all Jewish proselytes. We can surmise this by Peter's assumption that he made in v. 28a -- "You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation." But immediately on the heels of this statement, Peter confesses that he received recent revelation from God that outright contradicts this Jewish tradition that made such visits or associations taboo. Peter confesses, "but God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean" (v. 28b). In other words, it wasn't Peter's prerogative (or ours) to harbor this kind of attitude toward Gentiles or anyone else. Only God is qualified to make such qualitative distinctions, as we'll see in a moment.

After Cornelius explained to Peter why he sent for him, Peter acknowledges that God shows no partiality toward anyone in terms of race, ethnicity, gender or socioeconomic status (v. 34). However, God does draw a line in the sand when it comes to a person's spiritual status. Note very carefully, please, what Peter goes on to say about God: "but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable (or welcomed) to him" (v. 35). And this right here, brothers and sisters, is the second level of qualitative distinction that God makes that I alluded to in my opening paragraph. And it is precisely because of this distinction that texts like Jn 3:16 cannot possibly be understood as meaning that God loves everyone in the world without exception. Or that Christ died for everyone in the world even though in eternity God decreed that he would never accept anyone in the world who would never fear him and do what is right. But to develop this truth and prove it from scripture will take a separate post. Meanwhile, suffice it to say that Acts 10 sufficiently proves that God accepts, approves and welcomes to him men and women from all nations, all backgrounds, all walks of life (the first kind of qualitative distinction); yet, at the same time does not accept, approve of or welcome to him anyone who does not fear him or do what is right before him (a spiritual status distinction). As I will show in my next post, neither does God love anyone who does not fear him. Therefore, such passages as John 3:16 must be understood in a limited quantitative sense/unlimited qualitative sense, since God can only love those who fear him.

 

[Josiah]

People are Christs Sheep without Faith, however because they are Christs Sheep, and Christ died for them Jn 10:11,15 they will be given Faith to believe in Him. Everyone Christ died for will be sometime or other in their life time, born again and given faith to believe in Christ.

Now if a person never comes to faith, then Christ never died for them because they were never one of His Sheep.

@brightfame52


I disagree.

You are employing a logical fallacy. Yes, John 10 states that Jesus died for His sheep (which everyone here agrees with). But your entire point MANDATES the word "ONLY" and of course that word is essential to the new Anti-Calvin dogma of Jesus did NOT die for all but ONLY for some unknown few..

The logical fallacy being employed might be illustrated by this: "Ford makes Mustangs... ergo Ford ONLY makes Mustangs." Of course, you see the fallacy of that logic.

And remember, in Scripture, "Sheep" are sometimes illustrative of those with faith, "goats" those without faith. The issue is faith, not the Cross. No one here is affirming that all are given faith, that all are "sheep" only that the Bible repeatedly, verbatim, in black and white, flat out STATES Jesus died for all. And it NEVER states, "Jesus did not die for all but only, exclusively, solely for some unknown few." And that the affirming and belief of what the Bible verbatim states has been the view of Christianity for 2000 years - of the Church Fathers, a declaration of a Church Council, etc.

Now, everyone agrees with John Calvin that not all BENEFIT from the Cross since not all have faith, not all are sheep. Of course, since personal justification is NOT dependent SOLELY on the Cross; another factor is necessary, faith. Those with faith (sheep) benefit, those without (goats) do not. The Cross is EFFECTUAL for only some, as Calvin said. But he rejected some radicals that arose in his movement that Jesus did not die for all.




.



.

 

[prism]

BINGO!!! Well stated! In fact, in John 17 in Jesus' high priestly prayer to this Father, why didn't he pray for ALL those for whom he supposely died!? Very clearly in that passage he prays only for the elect.

Yes I think I brought that up in post #453

Jesus died for the sins of the world

@prism No where in Acts do we see the Apostles say to any individual, "Jesus died for you", Where does an Apostle anywhere state, "Jesus did NOT die for everyone but ONLY to some unknown few?" Where does an Apostle anywhere state, "This gospel probably doesn't apply to you since the odds...

www.christianityhaven.com

I know, too many posts to catch up on lol.

 

[Albion]

Saints, I have maintained from the beginning that there is indeed a sense in which Christ died for "the whole world". It's not in the quantitative sense (i.e. without exception), as some here believe, but rather in the qualitative sense, that is to say that Christ died for all men without distinction -- without regard to race, ethnicity, gender or socioeconomic status. The central passage in the NT that teaches this is in Acts 10 -- a chapter that teaches this important truth on two different levels, which makes this passage all the more significant.

It looks more like the message is that the Gentiles are included, contrary to the usual Jewish POV, and if that is correct, then where does it leave predestination? It is ruled out.

After Cornelius explained to Peter why he sent for him, Peter acknowledges that God shows no partiality toward anyone in terms of race, ethnicity, gender or socioeconomic status (v. 34). However, God does draw a line in the sand when it comes to a person's spiritual status. Note very carefully, please, what Peter goes on to say about God: "but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable (or welcomed) to him" (v. 35). And this right here, brothers and sisters, is the second level of qualitative distinction that God makes that I alluded to in my opening paragraph. And it is precisely because of this distinction that texts like Jn 3:16 cannot possibly be understood as meaning that God loves everyone in the world without exception. Or that Christ died for everyone in the world even though in eternity God decreed that he would never accept anyone in the world who would never fear him and do what is right.

I am only expressing my own reaction, but what you have presented here really seems to disprove the idea that Christ died for the few, i.e. for an Elect only.

It might also disprove Universalism, the belief that all are saved...but not that the sacrifice of the Cross didn't cover all of mankind.

 

[Josiah]

It looks more like the message is that the Gentiles are included, contrary to the usual Jewish POV, and if that is correct, then where does it leave predestination? It is ruled out.


I am only expressing my own reaction, but what you have presented here really seems to disprove the idea that Christ died for the few, i.e. for an Elect only.

It might also disprove Universalism, the belief that all are saved...but not that the sacrifice of the Cross didn't cover all of mankind.

I think Doran's reference to the Peter and Cornelius thing in Acts supports his point that God shows no partiality. What I completely fail to see is how that supports the point that Jesus did not die for all but only, exclusively, solely for some unknown view. It might more likely support the opposite but really not that either.

Sometimes anti-Calvinists like to hinge on the John 3:16 verse and the "world" point. Remember when Dave tried to insist the 'cosmos" means the stars in the sky, not people? But the view that Jesus died for all does not hinge on one verse, there are others that state "for everyone" and "for all." And I really fail to see why Jesus would be telling Nicodemus about the salvation of plants, stars and galaxies.

But my response is that while it's true that God shows no partiality, that hardly proves that ergo Jesus did not die for all but only, exclusively, soley for some unknown few.

Kind of like atpollard's point of how Scripture actually has less support (in words) for the divinity of Jesus than it does for Jesus died for all. He might have a point, but I fail to see how that proves that Jesus did not die for all but only, exclusively, solely for some few.


.

 

[Albion]

I think Doran's reference to the Peter and Cornelius thing in Acts supports his point that God shows no partiality.

which none of us has disputed.

What I completely fail to see is how that supports the point that Jesus did not die for all but only, exclusively, solely for some unknown view. It might more likely support the opposite but really not that either.

Right.

Sometimes anti-Calvinists like to hinge on the John 3:16 verse and the "world" point. Remember when Dave tried to insist the 'cosmos" means the stars in the sky, not people?

Oh boy. Yes, I do.

But the view that Jesus died for all does not hinge on one verse, there are others that state "for everyone" and "for all." And I really fail to see why Jesus would be telling Nicodemus about the salvation of plants, stars and galaxies.

Of course.

But my response is that while it's true that God shows no partiality, that hardly proves that ergo Jesus did not die for all but only, exclusively, soley for some unknown few.

That was my point, too, but you probably made the point better than I did.

Kind of like atpollard's point of how Scripture actually has less support (in words) for the divinity of Jesus than it does for Jesus died for all. He might have a point, but I fail to see how that proves that Jesus did not die for all but only, exclusively, solely for some few.

Exactly. If there is less support for X than for Y, meaning only that the information for one appears more times in Scripture than there are mentions of the other one...that fact does nothing to cast doubt on X.

But I have to also reiterate that while there probably is "less" support (meaning fewer verses) for Jesus being God incarnate, because there are all sorts of verses that say Jesus died for "all" or say the same thing in other wording...

There are actually quite a few verses that prove that Jesus was God and, also, that he claimed that status. I explained all of that and gave a number of verses that verify it.

It's not that there are only one or two verses that might be interpreted in some roundabout manner and be made to seem to say Jesus was God and/or claimed to be God, no. Ironically, many practicing Christians who are familiar with Scripture are simply unaware of this. (And a few of them are unnerved when it's pointed out to them.)

 

[Doran]

Let's see if we can connect a few dots to what Peter said in Act 10:35, which again reads: "but [God] accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right." What we should not overlook in this passage is that Peter is actually making a moral/spiritual commentary about the kind of man Cornelius was (v. 2). This is the kind of man God accepts. This is the kind of man that motivated God to dispatch an angel from heaven to help effect Cornelius' salvation. This is the kind of man God loves because God's love is sacrificial and moral in nature. Since there are so many passages that qualify God's love (which we'll look at another one in a moment) I can only conclude that God can only love whatever or whoever accords with his holy nature. Just as God cannot love sin; neither can he love any evildoer since his heart is the very fountain of evil (Mat 15:18-20). The only way, therefore, that God can love any sinner is by him sovereignly identifying a sinner (such as Cornelius) with the One who is as holy and righteous as He is! God can only love those who he chose in Christ in eternity (Eph 1:4).

Now let's contrast this passage with Paul's universal indictment of sin against all men:

Rom 3:10-18
10 As it is written:
"There is no one righteous, not even one;
11 there is no one who understands,
no one who seeks God.
12 All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one."
13 "Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit."
"The poison of vipers is on their lips."
14 "Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness."
15 "Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16 ruin and misery mark their ways,
17 and the way of peace they do not know."
18 "There is no fear of God before their eyes."
NIV

Would anyone here think for a moment that God accepts anyone who meets the above description? If anyone does, I exhort you to reconsider because your thinking because it is not in accord with God's revelation. So, here is another very pertinent text (in addition to Ex 20:5) that qualifies God's love:

Ps 103:11, 13, 17-18
11 For as high as the heavens are above the earth,
so great is his love for those who fear him...13 As
a father has compassion on his children, so the
LORD has compassion on those who fear him; 17 But
from everlasting to everlasting the LORD's love is
with those who fear him, and his righteousness with
their children's children 18 with those who keep
his covenant and remember to obey his precepts.
NIV

Now...what is so important about Paul's indictment against the human race is that he is describing sinful characteristics that are universally common among all unbelievers! Please let this sink in for a few moments, brethren. And, ironically, Paul saved the worst characteristic of all for last in v. 18. Isn't the fear of the Lord the "beginning of [saving] knowledge" (Prov 1:7)? The people described in this Romans 3 passage manifested all the characteristics listed in vv. 10-17 BECAUSE they had no fear of God in their heart. Because they lack this all-important spiritual quality, they did what was right in their own eyes -- with no regard for their Creator. Obviously, these kinds of people stand in very sharp contrast to the Cornelius' of this world!

So, then...how are we to rightly understand Jn 3:16 or 1Jn 2:2, etc. in light of this truth? The only way is to understand that the term "world" is being used in a spiritual sense -- the occupants of the world that God so loved or that Christ became an atoning sacrifice for are God's covenant elect. (After all, we are in the world, just not of it!) We should understand Jn 3:16 in light of vv.18 and 21 -- believers and doers of the truth! The "world" in this verse is God's elect.

Or to go in the opposite direction, we should consider Jn 17:9:

John 17:9
9 I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours.
NIV

Again, there is no way we can understand "world" in this context as being each and every person in it because Jesus specifically and explicitly omits the elect! In fact, ALL the elect, he omits (vv. 20-21)! So, the "world", for whom Jesus did not pray, is unquestionably limited to the world of the non-elect. It's limited to Satan's kingdom of darkness. It's limited to Satan's spiritual seed.

I know I have given some of you some tough meat to chew on but this is what scripture teaches. To posit that Christ died for the non-elect is patently absurd on many fronts. Even worse, it makes a mockery of God, Christ's gospel and his work of salvation. To say that Christ died for those whom he never decreed in eternity to be brought into a personal, loving, intimate covenant relationship with Himself is akin to saying that Christ died for Ishmael and Esau -- both of whom God decreed would be excluded from the redemptive Abrahamic Covenant!

 

[Doran]

I think Doran's reference to the Peter and Cornelius thing in Acts supports his point that God shows no partiality. What I completely fail to see is how that supports the point that Jesus did not die for all but only, exclusively, solely for some unknown view. It might more likely support the opposite but really not that either.

Sometimes anti-Calvinists like to hinge on the John 3:16 verse and the "world" point. Remember when Dave tried to insist the 'cosmos" means the stars in the sky, not people? But the view that Jesus died for all does not hinge on one verse, there are others that state "for everyone" and "for all." And I really fail to see why Jesus would be telling Nicodemus about the salvation of plants, stars and galaxies.

But my response is that while it's true that God shows no partiality, that hardly proves that ergo Jesus did not die for all but only, exclusively, soley for some unknown few.

Kind of like atpollard's point of how Scripture actually has less support (in words) for the divinity of Jesus than it does for Jesus died for all. He might have a point, but I fail to see how that proves that Jesus did not die for all but only, exclusively, solely for some few.


.

I have to make this very short. Gotta run soon. UNKNOWN to whom? God? Really?

Rom 8:29-30
29 For those whom he FOREKNEW he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.
ESV

Lord willin' and the crik doesn't rise, I'll be back tomorrow.

 

[Josiah]

I can only conclude that God can only love whatever or whoever accords with his holy nature.

@Doran

First of all, with all due respect (and I do appreciate your work here), this is a different subject. The issue here is which does the Bible state: Jesus died for all OR Jesus did NOT die for all but ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY for some unknown few.

But to your point above: Then the only possible conclusion is that God loves no one. Since God an only love those in accord with His holiness... and since no one is holy.... what other conclusion is possible?

Just as God cannot love sin; neither can he love any evildoer since his heart is the very fountain of evil (Mat 15:18-20).

Since all are sinful, then the only possible conclusion is that God loves no one. As you yourself indicate in Romans 3:10-18.

God can only love those who he chose in Christ in eternity (Eph 1:4).

Ephesians 1:4 says no such thing. This passage has to do the Election, it says nothing about God's love or Jesus' death. It certainly does not state that God ONLY loves those who will come to faith.

Ps 103:11, 13, 17-18
11 For as high as the heavens are above the earth,
so great is his love for those who fear him...13 As
a father has compassion on his children, so the
LORD has compassion on those who fear him; 17 But
from everlasting to everlasting the LORD's love is
with those who fear him, and his righteousness with
their children's children 18 with those who keep
his covenant and remember to obey his precepts.
NIV

I see your point. But the doctrine we are discussing is not here. Nowhere are the words "ONLY" "SOLELY" "EXCLUSIVELY" "NOT"

I would insert the Gospel here: Grace and mercy.

Now...what is so important about Paul's indictment against the human race is that he is describing sinful characteristics that are universally common among all unbelievers!

St. Paul calls himself the chief of sinners. Scripture states that if we claim to be without sin, we are liars. I think it uses the "L" word there. I personally doesn't know any Christians who are sinless.

Why would Jesus die for the sinless?

The Bible says ALL are sinful, none are righteous, so if Jesus ONLY died for the sinless and righteous, then He died for no one.

So, then...how are we to rightly understand Jn 3:16 or 1Jn 2:2, etc. in light of this truth? The only way is to understand that the term "world" is being used in a spiritual sense -- the occupants of the world that God so loved or that Christ became an atoning sacrifice for are God's covenant elect. (After all, we are in the world, just not of it!) We should understand Jn 3:16 in light of vv.18 and 21 -- believers and doers of the truth! The "world" in this verse is God's elect.

1. John uses the word "world" in the negative sense, as in "worldly", fallen, sinful, broken.

2. Sorry, but I fail to see how John 3:16 and 1 John 2:2 prove that Jesus did not die for all but ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY for some unknown few.

Or to go in the opposite direction, we should consider Jn 17:9:

John 17:9
9 I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours.
NIV

The ones the Father gives to Jesus are those to whom He gives faith. It's faith that makes us His own, that makes us His Body, that makes us His children, that makes us a part of His Church and means heaven is our home.

This verse is not stating "No, Jesus did not die for all but ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY for some unknown few."

To posit that Christ died for the non-elect is patently absurd on many fronts.

I think the opposite is flat-out unbiblical. And that the invention of these few Anti-Calvin men who stated Jesus did NOT die for all but rather ONLY , SOLELY, EXCLUSIVELY for some unknown few is an exact contradiction of many Scriptures, of the Church Fathers, of an Ecumenical Council, of the faith of Christianity for 2000 years, and of John Calvin.

And it destroys any certainty of faith. NO ONE can know if Jesus died for THEM, if their faith is actually in something for THEM or is just a phantom, a non-reality, a ghost. NO ONE can know if God's offer of forgiveness is for THEM. And a Christian cannot preach the Gospel to anyone since it probably is not true for them, they are holding out a false claim.

Rom 8:29-30
29 For those whom he FOREKNEW he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.
ESV

Absolutely! Everyone here agrees with every word there. But what's entirely missing? "No Jesus did not die for all but only, exclusively, solely for some unknown few."

Now, IF you follow Arminius and insist that God FOREKNEW who was coming to faith and thus gave them faith, then (like Arminius) you must repudiate the doctrine of Election. Tradition has held that "foreknow" and "predestined" go together... God chose the Elect and God knew His Elect. All this referring to FAITH. This thread is about whether the Bible states that Jesus died for all OR if it states that Jesus did NOT die for all but ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY for some unknown few.


Here are the two positions:


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 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.

+ This view simply 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 echos verbatim what God so often stated.

+ It is the view of the Early Church Fathers, of the Orthodox Church, the Catholic Church, the Anglican Church, the Lutheran Church, the Methodist Church, most Baptist churches and Evangelical churches and nearly all other denominations and faith communities. It was declared doctrine by a Church Council in the 9th Century. It was the view of John Calvin.



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

Here are the Scriptures that state this view:

Crickets.


+ For God to be wrong in all those MANY Scriptures that specifically, verbatim, in black-and-white words all who can read see, that Jesus died for all.... don't you need Scriptures (perhaps an equal number) that specifically, verbatim, in black-and-white words all who can read see, that Jesus did NOT die for all but ONLY for some unknown few?"

+ 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).


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


- Josiah




.

 

[Josiah]

I am familiar with the passages, they are read for their lessons in the Catholic Church more than for doctrinal proofs. But I do understand why you say what you do. I do not share your perspective.

@MoreCoffee

Nor I. The verses he quotes have to do with FAITH, they certainly do not state what he does, that Jesus did NOT die for all but rather ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY for some unknown few. He's just changing the subject.

Here is what Scripture states:

Hebrews 2:9 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.

This has been embraced and affirmed by the Early Church Fathers, by an Ecumenical Council, by 2000 years of universal Christian faith. It is affirmed by the Orthodox Church, the Catholic Church, the Lutheran Church, the Anglican Church, the Methodist Church, and most Baptist and Evangelical Churches. Atpollard seemed to make the point that Scripture and history affirms this more than it does the divinity of Jesus. And he has a point.

Some very radical, latter-day men arose within the Reformed movement who actually repudiated Calvin in some points, including this one - and invented this horrible dogma that Jesus did NOT die for all but ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY for some unknown few. But clearly, they have NOTHING in Scripture, the Fathers, the Councils, Christian history, or even in their spiritual leader John Calvin to support this. It seems to fall down to NOTHING - except a question they ask themselves. That's it, a question they rise and they ask themselves: "Why would Jesus die for those who won't have faith and thus not be saved?" And instead of having humility of say, "I don't know" they answer, "Because God and all the rest are wrong when they state that Jesus died for all." Pretty bad way to do theology. And they are left with a HORRIBLE teaching that means no one can know if they are saved, no one can know if the Cross is for THEM, no one can know if their faith in what He did for them actually means squat since they have no way to know if that was for THEM.


Blessings on your Advent and Christmas, brother.


- Josiah



.

 

[Albion]

Let's see if we can connect a few dots to what Peter said in Act 10:35, which again reads: "but [God] accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right." What we should not overlook in this passage is that Peter is actually making a moral/spiritual commentary about the kind of man Cornelius was (v. 2). This is the kind of man God accepts. This is the kind of man that motivated God to dispatch an angel from heaven to help effect Cornelius' salvation. This is the kind of man God loves because God's love is sacrificial and moral in nature. Since there are so many passages that qualify God's love (which we'll look at another one in a moment) I can only conclude that God can only love whatever or whoever accords with his holy nature. Just as God cannot love sin; neither can he love any evildoer since his heart is the very fountain of evil (Mat 15:18-20). The only way, therefore, that God can love any sinner is by him sovereignly identifying a sinner (such as Cornelius) with the One who is as holy and righteous as He is! God can only love those who he chose in Christ in eternity (Eph 1:4).

You've laid out the facts methodically, but your conclusion is a non-sequitur.

Yes, God saw something in Cornelius. God made a special move in Cornelius' case. God's love has been described in Scripture as being "qualified," as you termed it.

But none of that requires a conclusion that Christ didn't die for all mankind, but died for only a select few that he chose before their births and, more than that, guaranteed them salvation, which nothing about the story of Cornelius includes.

Now...what is so important about Paul's indictment against the human race is that he is describing sinful characteristics that are universally common among all unbelievers! Please let this sink in for a few moments, brethren.

Wait a minute. Christ died for sinners. He atoned for their sins. He did not make them, in so doing, sinless for the whole of their lives to come.

And he did not make all pagans become disciples of Christ by that act, either. It made mortals ELIGIBLE for salvation, which no human was prior to Calvary.

So, then...how are we to rightly understand Jn 3:16 or 1Jn 2:2, etc. in light of this truth? The only way is to understand that the term "world" is being used in a spiritual sense -- the occupants of the world that God so loved or that Christ became an atoning sacrifice for are God's covenant elect. (After all, we are in the world, just not of it!) We should understand Jn 3:16 in light of vv.18 and 21 -- believers and doers of the truth! The "world" in this verse is God's elect.

Nope. None of that is indicated.

It's one guess among many that could occur to the mind of man, but that's about all we can say. And that part about the world being not really the physical world but merely an analogy referring to the spirit world....

 

[1689Dave]

The verse does not say "that he died for."

"Sheep" = those with faith. "Goats" = those without faith. So. the two sentences you constructed are essentially the same: "they were not his sheep because they did not believe" and "they do not believe because they are not his sheep." Same thing.



.

It says he gave his life for = died for.

 

[Josiah]

It says he gave his life for = died for.

@1689Dave

It does not say, "He gave His life only for the sheep." Without you ADDING the "only" and thus radically CHANGING what God said, your view is entirely missing from the verse.

All you are doing is proving - over and over - that there is not any Scripture that states Jesus did NOT die for all but ONLY for some unknown few. As you prove, your view is nowhere stated in Scripture.

However, Scripture repeatedly, flat-out, verbatim, literally, in black-and-white words, STATES the EXACT OPPOSITE of your horrible invention.

Hebrews 2:9 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.



.