Jesus died for the sins of the world

[Doran]

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.

The moral to the story is that a common retort to an argument is that, "well, scripture does not say". For example, scripture doesn't say specifically that Jesus didn't lay down his life for the goats as well as the sheep. But this is a fallacious argument since scripture also doesn't say that he did lay down his life for the goats. And moreover, scripture does contrast the two groups.

 

[Albion]

We can make it say anything we want. But scripture speaks of people cursed of God who will never be saved. Many of the Pharisees come up among them as blinded by God so they cannot believe or be saved.

But you do not know that to be the case, nor is it what Scripture says about them.

In short, the burden of proof is on you! You need to prove from scripture that Jesus died for each and every person the world.

By naming each of them, I suppose.

Do you not know how ridiculous that is, especially since what Scripture says, without naming names, is conclusive as it already stands. You had a reasonable point when it came to the use of "many," but that wording is only one of the ways that the issue is addressed in Scripture. Would you like to explain to us why "ALL" isn't clear enough?

COULD NOT love due to his holy nature. God cannot love what is evil and yet that is what all unregenerate men are!

So, by that reasoning, absolutely no one could have been benefitted by the Sacrifice of the Cross since all men were in sin at the time. And that in turn means that the entirety of the Limited Atonement vs Unlimited Atonement debate that we were subjected to on these pages was pointless since there was, in actuality, no Atonement at all.

 

[Albion]

The moral to the story is that a common retort to an argument is that, "well, scripture does not say". For example, scripture doesn't say specifically that Jesus didn't lay down his life for the goats as well as the sheep. But this is a fallacious argument since scripture also doesn't say that he did lay down his life for the goats. And moreover, scripture does contrast the two groups.

If this is your point, you need a different story to illustrate it. The one about the driver getting instructions and then disregarding them doesn't bear it out.

 

[Doran]

@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.



.

None of those passage prove that Christ died for all in the quantitative sense, i.e. without exception. But if we interpret those passages as meaning that he died for all in the qualitative sense (i.e. all men without distinction such as Jews and Gentiles) then this interpretation accords with all the "many" passage. Again...you're ASSUMING that these passages mean all men without exception. And as such, your interpretation contradicts all the "many" passages.

Another huge problem you have with your interpretation is that God never redeems anyone that He has not decreed to be in a covenant relationship with. If you're going to posit the idea that Christ died for all, quantitatively, then you must show that God has brought the entire world into the New Covenant. This is no small problem since the New Covenant was only made with God's covenant people, i.e. Israel! You need to explain to us how each and every person in the world = Israel.

 

[Doran]

If this is your point, you need a different story to illustrate it. The one about the driver getting instructions and then disregarding them doesn't bear it out.

Well, we get explicit "instructions" (teachings) from scripture, don't we? Jesus said he laid down his life for the sheep. That pretty specific, isn't it? Yet, many will say that since Jesus DIDN'T say that he didn't lay down his life also for the goats, then we're free to be instructed (deduce) that he DID lay down his life for the goats. My analogy is sound. The driver refused to follow my specific instructions on how to get to his destination because he opted instead to go in the opposite direction, as he trusted a sign post by what it didn't say! The sign didn't say that the town couldn't be reached going in that direction.

 

[Doran]

You must hold to the fallacy that if you say something often enough, it becomes unaccountable.

You have PROVEN (many times) that you have not one verse that states Jesus did not die for these Pharisees. You know that. I know that. Everyone here knows that. Your "because He didn't give his life for them" well, all that must be invisible words only your eyes can see... or maybe proof that you have great difficulty reading.

The only way your horrible invention can be found stated in Scripture is for you to CHANGE what Scripture states - calling out all the Scriptures that state the EXACT OPPOSITE of your view as wrong, and ADDING your view to Scriptures we all know don't say that. It's not only silly, it not only reveals a DEEP disrespect for God and His Word, but also reveals how empty your hand and reveals you are, well, dishonest.




What good does it go to respond to you when obviously you cannot or will not actually READ anything?

This point has been addressed over and over and over and over - many times, in several threads, by several posters. But you don't care if anyone addresses it and you don't read it if they do. Is this because you insist are unaccountable (errant - more so than God) or because you have a problem reading? 0r is it because you think if you know how to form a question in English, this makes your positions correct?

The Father gives people to Jesus by giving them faith. It is BY FAITH that we become His own, it is BY FAITH that we become His Body, it is BY FAITH that we become His Church, it is BY FAITH that we become His sheep, it is BY FAITH that we are personally justified. And yes, FAITH is the issue of John 10.

And again, as we all know, questions aren't apologetics. Questions prove nothing. Questions are used in debate as a diversion tactic. We all know that.



.

Right! The sheep had faith because they were of God's pasture. They were Christ's sheep! They believed BECAUSE they were sheep.

 

[Doran]

@Doran



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

Not at all. God loves those who are in Christ. And all saints have been in Christ before the foundation of the world. Contemplate Rom 8:39. Note carefully WHERE the love of God for the saints is! It's "in Christ Jesus our Lord" The implications to this text are staggering. This means God does not love anyone who is OUTSIDE of Christ from all eternity! Divine election occurred in "eternity past", whereas the elect's salvation is accomplished and applied in space and time. This passage proves that God can only love the righteous and the sinners are righteous because Christ is their federal head! The Father doesn't look at the elect as sinners (even though we are!); he identifies us with His righteous Son. This is HOW he can love sinners... while at the same time NOT loving us AS sinners.

Now...before you tell me that the text doesn't say that God doesn't love anyone outside of Christ, I would remind you that there are a more than a few passages that teach that God hates the unrepentant wicked, evildoers, liars, murderers, adulterers and the such. Obviously, such must be outside of Christ, lest you postulate that God must be conflicted and loves and hates everyone in Christ. So the question becomes now: Did Jesus die for those his father hated from all eternity? Or did he die for all the elect who God foreknew (i.e.foreloved) in all eternity?
Did Jesus die for gazillions he knew would never believe the gospel?

 

[Josiah]

What about the world that perished outside of Israel? Jesus said, "salvation is of the Jews". That's why Paul says God grafted believing Gentiles into the places of the unbelieving Jews whom God broke off. Did He die for them or anyone not appointed membership in Israel?

1. Questions aren't substantiation. They are used as diversions, when the poster can't support his position, when his hand is empty.

2. Yes, Jesus died for all. At least that's what God states (repeatedly, verbatim). Does that mean all are saved? Are all elect? Of course not.

3. Jesus said salvation is OF the Jews. He did not say, "I will die only for the Jews."


.

 

[Josiah]

moreover, scripture does contrast the two groups.

Yes. Sheep have faith and thus are personally justified. They are the Elect. Goats don't have faith, they are not personally justified. NO ONE HERE is questioning or debating any of that. That's not the issue.

The issue is this: Which does Scripture state? That Jesus died for all OR that Jesus did NOT die for all but ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY for some unknown few.



.

 

[Josiah]

We can make it say anything we want.

I know you think so, and that is the essence of our disagreement.

Many of us think that God meant what He stated. You feel that the exact opposite of what he stated is what you want to make it.

But scripture speaks of people cursed of God who will never be saved.

Yes.

How does that prove that God is wrong when it SO often, verbatim, clearly, undeniably, the black-and-white words on the page STATES "Jesus died for all" but what you want to make its say is the exact opposite, "No, that's wrong, Jesus did NOT die for all but ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY for some unknown few." You have to MAKE God say the exact opposite of what He said because God never did say what you do.

Many of the Pharisees come up among them as blinded by God so they cannot believe or be saved.

Perhaps.

How does that prove that God is wrong when it SO often, verbatim, clearly, undeniably, the black-and-white words on the page STATES "Jesus died for all" but what you want to make its say is the exact opposite, "No, that's wrong, Jesus did NOT die for all but ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY for some unknown few." You have to MAKE God say the exact opposite of what He said because God never did say what you do.

those who believe HAVE eternal life.

Absolutely! I'm SO glad you are abandoning your repudiation of faith.

But how does comment here (so true) prove that God is wrong when it SO often, verbatim, clearly, undeniably, the black-and-white words on the page STATES "Jesus died for all" but what you want to make its say is the exact opposite, "No, that's wrong, Jesus did NOT die for all but ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY for some unknown few." You have to MAKE God say the exact opposite of what He said because God never did say what you do.

If not one of them, I could not believe.

While you are looking for the verse where God states, "Jesus did NOT die for all (as I so often stated) but rather ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY for some unknown few" you might also quote the verse where God states, " If you believe, it's because Jesus died for you; and if one doesn't believe, it's because Jesus did NOT die for them."

Good luck on both counts.




.

 

[Josiah]

scripture doesn't say specifically that Jesus didn't lay down his life for the goats as well as the sheep.

Well, it also doesn't specifically state that Jesus died for Republicans or for females or for those with big feet But I suspect all that is covered by "all."


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 these.

And moreover, scripture does contrast the two groups.

Yes. Sheep have faith, goats do not. You might even want to say that the Sheep are Elect and the goats are not.

But you are wrong, God did not say, "Well, I repeated said He died for all but I didn't mean that, I meant that He did NOT die for all but ONLY for some unknown few; I meant pretty much the opposite of what I repeatedly said (I just never said the truth on this).



.

 

[Josiah]

None of those passage prove that Christ died for all in the quantitative sense, i.e. without exception. But if we interpret those passages as meaning that he died for all in the qualitative sense (i.e. all men without distinction such as Jews and Gentiles) then this interpretation accords with all the "many" passage.

No. "Many" does not mean "only, exclusively, solely some unknown few." You are forcing a meaning into the word that's not there.

If you need to find an "exception" - then find one. Find the verse that states, "Jesus did not die for Joe Biden" or whatever. But finding where God said, "Joe Biden is not a sheep but a goat" would only mean he doesn't have faith, not that Jesus didn't die for him. Finding a verse where God states, "Joe Biden is not saved" would again mean he does not have faith. If you are going to substantiate that all those Scriptures were God stressed "Jesus died for all" have exceptions, then give the exceptions. Such requires a "did not die for."

Another huge problem you have with your interpretation is that God never redeems anyone that He has not decreed to be in a covenant relationship with.

The covenant is entered into by faith.

You need to explain to us how each and every person in the world = Israel.

I never said that.

I said that Scripture repeatedly, verbatim, in black-and-white STATES "Jesus died for all." Scripture never states the contrary.

I hold that the New Israel is the church, the communion of believers, those who have the gift of faith.





.

 

[Doran]

But you do not know that to be the case, nor is it what Scripture says about them.

By naming each of them, I suppose.

Do you not know how ridiculous that is, especially since what Scripture says, without naming names, is conclusive as it already stands. You had a reasonable point when it came to the use of "many," but that wording is only one of the ways that the issue is addressed in Scripture. Would you like to explain to us why "ALL" isn't clear enough?


So, by that reasoning, absolutely no one could have been benefitted by the Sacrifice of the Cross since all men were in sin at the time. And that in turn means that the entirety of the Limited Atonement vs Unlimited Atonement debate that we were subjected to on these pages was pointless since there was, in actuality, no Atonement at all.

But you do not know that to be the case, nor is it what Scripture says about them.

By naming each of them, I suppose.

No, I'll settle for proof texts.

Do you not know how ridiculous that is, especially since what Scripture says, without naming names, is conclusive as it already stands. You had a reasonable point when it came to the use of "many," but that wording is only one of the ways that the issue is addressed in Scripture. Would you like to explain to us why "ALL" isn't clear enough?

And your point? Mine is that you universalists need to reconcile the "many" passages with the "all" passages. Are you going to tell us that Many = All?

So, by that reasoning, absolutely no one could have been benefitted by the Sacrifice of the Cross since all men were in sin at the time. And that in turn means that the entirety of the Limited Atonement vs Unlimited Atonement debate that we were subjected to on these pages was pointless since there was, in actuality, no Atonement at all.

 

[Doran]

Gents, this forum format is driving me nuts. This is one of the most difficult formats I've had to navigate through in replying to messages. So, unless someone can graciously give me some pointers, I must bow out. Navigating this format in terms of replies is far too time consuming. I find other forums a lot easier and more intuitive to learn and navigate.

 

[Lamb]

Gents, this forum format is driving me nuts. This is one of the most difficult formats I've had to navigate through in replying to messages. So, unless someone can graciously give me some pointers, I must bow out. Navigating this format in terms of replies is far too time consuming. I find other forums a lot easier and more intuitive to learn and navigate.

I will message you and give you some tips.

 

[Albion]

Another huge problem you have with your interpretation is that God never redeems anyone that He has not decreed to be in a covenant relationship with.

This is interesting and something a little bit different. How can it be that God "never redeems anyone that he has not decreed"...etc? And what, exactly, do you mean by "decreed" and "covenant relationship?"

 

[Albion]

No, I'll settle for proof texts.

And your point? Mine is that you universalists need to reconcile the "many" passages with the "all" passages. Are you going to tell us that Many = All?

"Universalists?"

1. Do you know what the term means? and

2. Who here strikes you as being a universalist...and, for goodness' sake...why?

 

[Doran]

This is interesting and something a little bit different. How can it be that God "never redeems anyone that he has not decreed"...etc? And what, exactly, do you mean by "decreed" and "covenant relationship?"

Predestination, sir. If God has not predestined a person in eternity to be saved, then that person will never be saved (Rom 8:29-30). Also, God is very obviously a covenant God who sovereignly chooses with whom he will enter into a personal covenant relationship. The two biggest covenants in scripture are the Mosaic Covenant God made with Israel at Mt. Sinai, and the New Covenant that He also made with Israel that would replace the first (Jer 31:31-34). (Although the Abrahmaic Covenant of Promise is also very significant (Gen 13, 15, 17, 22, etc.). Jesus instituted this new redemptive covenant at the Last Supper with his elect Jewish disciples (Mat 26:28; Mk 14:24; Lk 22:20), and ratified the covenant in his blood that was shed on the Cross -- thus fulfilling the prophecy in Jeremiah. (It's interesting that in Luke's version of the Last Supper, he wrote "which is poured out for YOU" verses "many" in the other two synoptic gospels. This is very likely due to the fact that Luke's Gospel targets Gentiles. This is a nuance that is often overlooked in Luke. Yes, "you" certainly applies to the Jewish disciples at the Supper, but it also applies more broadly to the elect Gentiles that Christ would redeem in time and space.

Matthew, whose Gospel is thoroughly Jewish and targeted to the Jews wrote that Jesus "will save his people from their sins" (Mat 1:21). (IOW his covenant people Israel!) How likely is it that Jesus would die for anyone but his covenant people? Not very! Why would he since they were never predestined in eternity to be brought into the New Covenant and he knew that!? But how likely is it that Jesus in his high priestly prayer in John 17 would pray only for the elect -- Jews and Gentiles alike? I'd say quite high, since that's precisely what he did! Don't you find it at all at least a wee bit strange that Jesus did not pray for each and every person in the world for whom he allegedly died by including the world in his prayer? Yet, he specifically omits the world and only includes Jewish and Gentile sheep (i.e. God's elect, cf. v.20).

So, the two huge problems here is why would Jesus die for those whom he knew in eternity his Father never predestined to be saved? Doesn't that smack a wee bit absurd to you?

Also, where in scripture does it teach that God entered into a redemptive covenant with the entire world? Historically, God has only saved his covenant people, or prior to the Mosaic Covenant the People of Promise who were of the godly seed of the woman (Gen 3:15)? The best we can say about the extent of the New Covenant is how John expressed salvation in Rev 5:9. It can be said the New Covenant people of God includes men from every tribe, language, people and nation. So in this sense the New Covenant would embrace the whole world in a qualitative sense, i.e. all men without distinction. But also at the same time in a limited sense, quantitatively, since it isn't all men without exception.

Therefore, since the New Covenant was made with God's Old Covenant people (ethnic Israel), and since Israel is a type of Christ by contrast and the Church is the Body of Christ then by extension the New Covenant was made with the [spiritual] Israel of God (Gal 6:16)-- not the world!

 

[Albion]

Predestination, sir. If God has not predestined a person in eternity to be saved, then that person will never be saved (Rom 8:29-30).

Very well, The same old concept, then.

Also, God is very obviously a covenant God who sovereignly chooses with whom he will enter into a personal covenant relationship. The two biggest covenants in scripture are the Mosaic Covenant God made with Israel at Mt. Sinai, and the New Covenant that He also made with Israel that would replace the first (Jer 31:31-34). (Although the Abrahmaic Covenant of Promise is also very significant (Gen 13, 15, 17, 22, etc.). Jesus instituted this new redemptive covenant at the Last Supper with his elect Jewish disciples (Mat 26:28; Mk 14:24; Lk 22:20), and ratified the covenant in his blood that was shed on the Cross -- thus fulfilling the prophecy in Jeremiah.

None of that supports the theory of Presdestination. The first reply doesn't deal with the same thing at all, and the other is so limited that it would make God save out of all mankind only a handful of people. That would in itself make a mockery of almost everything Christ taught and did with respect to salvation and would absolutely render everything that we've said and agreed to here concerning the "many" be negated.

 

[prism]

The first reply doesn't deal with the same thing at all, and the other is so limited that it would make God save out of all mankind only a handful of people.

Talk about limited, it is estimated that the antediluvian period had at least one million persons at the time of the Flood…yet…

1 Peter 3:20 KJV
Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.