Jesus died for the sins of the world

1689Dave

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 17, 2022
Messages
1,871
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
No
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.




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.





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.





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.






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.




.
Jesus died only for the elect or all would be saved. To say he only made it possible for the self-righteous to save themselves is not Christianity. It's Pelagianism.
 

1689Dave

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 17, 2022
Messages
1,871
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
No
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."


.
How much time did Jesus spend asking questions? Are you condemning him for doing so?

307 questions

In the Gospels Jesus asks many more questions than he answers. To be precise, Jesus asks 307 questions. He is asked 183 of which he only answers 3. Asking questions was central to Jesus' life and teachings.

Jesus Is the Question: The 307 Questions Jesus Asked and ...​

https://www.amazon.com › Jesus-Question-Questions-Ask...
 

1689Dave

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 17, 2022
Messages
1,871
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
No
Looks like you do not have any single name to give. Just a generality based on what exactly?
I don't understand what you are getting at.
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,198
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I don't understand what you are getting at.
Sorry, I may have worded my post obscurely. What I mean is that you did not reply with any specific individual name in sacred scripture who is destined for hell and damnation. Your reply was to refer to passages that deal with condemnation but do not exactly name anyone who really is known to be in hell, or is explicitly said to be predestined for hell. I do, however, acknowledge that very harsh and judgemental language is directed by the Lord to Judas Iscariot, yet the Lord does not say that Judas is in hell or will inevitably be in hell.

The above is a clarification, but I am not inviting another round of debate on the L of TULIP.

Fundamentally, I am a Catholic Christian and I do not think in TULIP terms despite knowing what the letters stand for, and despite reading Calvinist theology books that explain the letters directly or indirectly as part of Calvinist Systematic Theology. I am writing this so that the matter, as far as I am concerned, can be set to rest for the time being.
 

1689Dave

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 17, 2022
Messages
1,871
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
No
Sorry, I may have worded my post obscurely. What I mean is that you did not reply with any specific individual name in sacred scripture who is destined for hell and damnation. Your reply was to refer to passages that deal with condemnation but do not exactly name anyone who really is known to be in hell, or is explicitly said to be predestined for hell. I do, however, acknowledge that very harsh and judgemental language is directed by the Lord to Judas Iscariot, yet the Lord does not say that Judas is in hell or will inevitably be in hell.

The above is a clarification, but I am not inviting another round of debate on the L of TULIP.

Fundamentally, I am a Catholic Christian and I do not think in TULIP terms despite knowing what the letters stand for, and despite reading Calvinist theology books that explain the letters directly or indirectly as part of Calvinist Systematic Theology. I am writing this so that the matter, as far as I am concerned, can be set to rest for the time being.
Judas? Paul speaks of "vessels of wrath fitted for destruction". False teachers? ...There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.” 1 John 5:16 (KJV 1900)
 

Doran

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2022
Messages
136
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
"Universalists?"

1. Do you know what the term means? and

2. Who here strikes you as being a universalist...and, for goodness' sake...why? :D
"Universalists" was just shorthand for advocates for unlimited atonement. Besides, you do have a lot in common with real universalists who are more consistent than the folks here. At least they believe that since Christ atoned for all men's sins, then all men are saved. So...there is that. :)
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,198
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Avoid Protestantism! I always say.

🤓
 

1689Dave

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 17, 2022
Messages
1,871
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
No
Avoid Protestantism! I always say.

🤓
I avoid both Catholicism and Protestantism. But I've studied Protestant doctrines in depth weeding out the unscriptural component. When I got thrown off the Evangelical/Pentecostal bandwagon, I looked at the Reformation thinking that was the epitome of debate and refined truth. So I went as far as scripture allowed for with the Protestants. But carried on from there as a 1600s Baptist but not really finding all the truth I had hoped for there.
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,760
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
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.
I don't think either of those comments has anything to do with what I wrote. Perhaps you just misunderstood my point.
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,760
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Jesus died only for the elect or all would be saved.
THAT notion is, I think, at the heart of your misunderstanding. You hit the theological nail on the head, in other words, even if you didn't realize it.

One thing that shows it to be wrong is that the people (most Christians and their churches IOW) who believe that Jesus died for the sins of mankind do not also believe that everybody is automatically saved as a resul! That should clue you to the fact that you've got something out of place, or wrong, or that something's missing from your theory.

What you might do in the future, however, is try to prove your POV, wrong or not, rather than just state it for the umpteenth time..
 

Doran

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2022
Messages
136
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
@Doran


quote]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.






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.
[/QUOTE]

Yes, but sheep and goats are contrasted. And since John 10 says that Jesus lays down for his sheep, then the logical inference is that the goats are excluded, most especially since the goats CANNOT come to faith. Only God's sheep are given the gift of faith.
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."






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."




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.




Same as above.

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




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



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.





.
 

Doran

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2022
Messages
136
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Doran said:
(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.

Yes, but only sheep CAN have faith. And Jesus laid down his life only for those who CAN have faith, i.e. his sheep.

Doran said:
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."

The only way anyone could "easily see it as implying He did die for all" is by using the method of eisgesis to interpret the text. And scripture explicitly forbids us to add to God's word! You're implicitly adding the word "all" before men.
 

Doran

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2022
Messages
136
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
quote]Doran said:
(Mat 25:31-46)[/quote].


Josiah:
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.

Yes, but only sheep CAN have faith. And Jesus laid down his life only for those who CAN have faith, i.e. his sheep.

Doran said:
Rev 5:9,


Josiah:
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."

The only way anyone could "easily see it as implying He did die for all" is by using the method of eisgesis to interpret the text. And scripture forbids us to add to God's word! You're implicitly adding the word "all" before men.
 

Doran

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2022
Messages
136
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Doran said:
(Mat 25:31-46)
.


Josiah:
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.

Yes, but only sheep CAN have faith. And Jesus laid down his life only for those who CAN have faith, i.e. his sheep.

Doran said:
Rev 5:9,


Josiah:
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."

The only way anyone could "easily see it as implying He did die for all" is by using the method of eisgesis to interept the text. And scripture forbids us to add to God's word! You're implicitly adding the word "all" before men.
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,760
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
"Universalists" was just shorthand for advocates for unlimited atonement.
I see that...now that you've explained what you meant. But I would suggest not using one well-known theological term to mean a different one. To the reader, it could have been the case that you actually meant what you wrote. :)
 

Doran

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2022
Messages
136
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Sorry for the double posting, everyone. I'm trying to figure this forum out, and I also see that I can't delete a post once it's posted. Anyhow...while I probably am not responding to individual snippets correctly (per Lamb's instructions to me privately), nonetheless I think I have found a workaround by using my text editor to compose replies and then copying from my test editior and pasting to here. It's still a little awkward but at least now everyone can see the context of my replies.
 

Doran

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2022
Messages
136
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I see that...now that you've explained what you meant. But I would suggest not using one well-known theological term to mean a different one. To the reader, it could have been the case that you actually meant what you wrote. :)
Such are the pitfalls for those who hold to universal atonement. Just another good reason to abandon that error. 😅
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,760
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
The only way anyone could "easily see it as implying He did die for all" is by using the method of eisgesis to interept the text. And scripture forbids us to add to God's word! You're implicitly adding the word "all" before men.
That's just you adding something that wasn't part of the writer's message. That Christ died for "all" is found in many places in Scripture. That's been posted previously with chapter and verse and is beyond questioning now.
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,760
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Such are the pitfalls for those who hold to universal atonement. Just another good reason to abandon that error. 😅
Well, then, you should direct your attention to them, whomever they might be.

As I recall, there aren't any Universalists posting here at the present.
 

1689Dave

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 17, 2022
Messages
1,871
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
No
Well, then, you should direct your attention to them, whomever they might be.

As I recall, there aren't any Universalists posting here at the present.
Isn't it obvious we are not talking about Unitarian Universalism? But Arminian Universalism?
 
Top Bottom