Jesus died for the sins of the world

[Josiah]

I'll settle for proof texts.

@Doran


Here are four...


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.


I too will settle for clear proof texts, perhaps 4 that are equally clear as the above, at least 4 that state, "No, Jesus did not die for all but only for some unknown few." Can you present at least 4 such passages that state that?

Mine is that you universalists

No one in this discussion is a universalist. Universalism was a split off from radical, extreme Calvinism some 300 years ago. Like those Calvinists, they hold that if Jesus died for you, you are saved (faith being irrelevant) BUT they realized what nearly every Calvinists has (including all Calvinists personally known to me), God says that Jesus died for all (and NEVER only for some few) THUS they hold to universal personal justification (whether there is faith or not); their mantra: "If Jesus died for all then all are personally justified."

Dave's foundational apologetic is close to universalism; he comes close to this. He too has argued that if Jesus died for all (as the Bible states) then all would have personal justification. This is an apologetic OFTEN used by those defending their invention that Jesus did NOT die for all but ONLY a few. It's a point 1689Dave has made dozens and dozens of times. But he technically is not a universalist because he does not agree with God on whether Jesus died for all, he (like you) holds that He only died for some unknown few.

need to reconcile the "many" passages with the "all" passages. Are you going to tell us that Many = All?

I believe that all means all. Read what the Bible says. I believe that "ONLY some" would mean that, but no such Scripture exists. And not one person interpreted Scripture that way until a handful of radical anti-Calvin guys invented that idea. The Church Fathers, an Ecumenical Church Council (even John Calvin) all held that "all" means all.

"Many" does not mean "not all." And certainly, "many" does not mean "some unknown FEW" (the view of Limited Atonement). For you to conclude that "many" means that, you'd need some verse that states "but NOT Joe Biden" or whoever you think is exempted from the "all" (the 'all' of course would still apply to all the rest). That word "NOT" is your position, it is the essential word you are mandated to present. EXAMPLE: "For all have sinned and all short...." BUT there is a verse that states, "Jesus was without sin." SO, the Bible verbatim, flat-out, in black and white makes an exception - JESUS - and so we except that one exception to the "all." But it does not mean that all blonde haired persons are exempt, it means Jesus is. Where is your verse that state, "Jesus did NOT die for ___________." If you find it, that will mean that _________ is excluded from the "all."

Predestination

This thread is not about predestination. Most here accept that view, but if you want to discuss that, create a thread on that (or better yet, continue one of the several threads already existing on this forum).

It's not about predestination or that some are Elect. It's not about sheep (those with faith) and goats (those without faith). It's not about who has or does not have personal justification. The topic is this: DID JESUS DIE FOR ALL PEOPLE (as the Bible repeatedly, verbatim, literally, flat-out, in black and white states, as the church fathers taught, as an Ecumenical Church Council declared as dogma, as Luther and Calvin both taught) OR is this wrong, and in fact JESUS DID NOT DIE FOR ALL BUT ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY FOR SOME UNKNOWN FEW." (a view never existing before a handful of men who declared Calvin wrong and invented this dogma).




.

 

[Albion]

Isn't it obvious we are not talking about Unitarian Universalism? But Arminian Universalism?

Who knows? When I'm being told that a well-known theological term can be used to mean anything at all that the poster has in mind, then anything's possible.

My best guess was that our friend was attempting to insult traditional Christians and thought it would be cute to accuse me of believing that everybody will be saved, no matter what.

Such coyness aside, I would just think he, like you, fails to understand that the Atonement of mankind DOES NOT mean everyone is automatically saved.

Here's the meaning of Atonement, taken from the American Heritage Dictionary--
............................................................................................................................................................................
atonement

ə-tōn′mənt

noun​

1. Amends or reparation made for an injury or wrong; expiation.
2. An individual's reconciliation with God by means of repentance and confession of one's transgressions.
3. The reconciliation of God and humans brought about by the redemptive life and death of Jesus.

................................................................................................................................................................................................
Note that not one of the meanings given says that what's forgiven establishes the final and unchangeable status of the recipient forevermore.

 

[1689Dave]

@Doran

Here are four...


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.


I too will settle for clear proof texts, perhaps 4 that are equally clear as the above, at least 4 that state, "No, Jesus did not die for all but only for some unknown few."





No one in this discussion is a universalists. Universalism was a split off from radical, extreme Calvinism some 300 years ago. Like those Calvinists, they hold that if Jesus died for you, you are saved (faith being irrelevant) BUT they realized what nearly every Calvinists has (including all Calvinists personally known to me), God says that Jesus died for all (and NEVER only for some few) THUS they hold to universal personal justification (whether there is faith or not). No one here holds to that.






I believe that all means all. Read what the Bible says. I believe that "ONLY some" would mean that, but no such Scripture exists. And not one person interpreted Scripture that way until a handful of radical anti-Calvin guys invented that idea. The Church Fathers, an Ecumenical Church Council (even John Calvin) all held that "all" means all.

"Many" does not mean "not all." For you to conclude that "many" means that, you'd need some verse that states "but NOT Joe Biden" or whoever you think is exempted from the "all" (the 'all' of course would still apply to all the rest). That word "NOT" is your position, it is the essential word you are mandated to present. EXAMPLE: "For all have sinned and all short...." BUT there is a verse that states, "Jesus was without sin." SO, the Bible verbatim, flat-out, in black and white makes an exception - JESUS - and so we except that one exception to the "all." But it does not mean that all blonde haired persons are exempt, it means Jesus is. Where is your verse that state, "Jesus did NOT die for ___________." If you find it, that will mean that _________ is excluded from the "all."




.

Who made up the audience in Hebrews? It was the Hebrews that knew salvation is only for the Jews. So who would be the ALL men the writer is referring to? Would it not be the Gentiles promised to Abraham?

Americanised "Christianity" places all on the wrong foot every time.

 

[Albion]

In other words, the whole of mankind (Jews + non-Jews) is described as being eligible for salvation?

 

[1689Dave]

It's interesting, to say the least, to read a self-proclaimed Bible Expert insisting that the Bible is just the musings of some ancient Hebrews and NOT divine revelation, not the word of God!

So the audience is not important when trying to understand it as they would? And then to criticize scholarship as a form of ignorance? Wow....

 

[Albion]

So the audience is not important when trying to understand it as they would?

That's not what I saw in your comment, however. When a speaker is recorded in the Bible as having promoted an idea, and that idea is presented to posterity as correct, to denounce it as nothing more than a personal opinion is to say that the Bible is "up for grabs" so far as its authority is concerned.

 

[1689Dave]

That's not what I saw in your comment, however.

Try reading without distraction.

 

[Josiah]

@1689Dave

Dave: Questions are not apologetics. And generally not permitted in debate. A debater asking a question in lieu of addresses points is evidence that they have no defense. Everyone here knows this. Questions are not substantiation. For anything.

Try reading these without distraction, without assuming God is lying.

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.



@ Albion

It's interesting, to say the least, to read a self-proclaimed Bible Expert insisting that the Bible is just the musings of some ancient Hebrews and NOT divine revelation, not the word of God!

It's shocking to see the disrespect for Scripture. When Scripture FLAT OUT states something (such as "Jesus died for all" or "This is my Body") he feels perfectly fine telling God, "That's not true, you misspoke - what you are required by me to MEAN is the exact opposite of what you verbatim said." It just amazes me. The ego of it all! It is stunning. These folks will insist that SCRIPTURE needs to state doctrine, yet at all their new inventions, they do the opposite - their view is the opposite of what Scripture states (they LOVE to just throw in a "NOT" at all those points so that the God said the exact opposite of the truth and they gotta correct Him). It certainly makes it hard to discuss Scripture, when they hold that at every invention of theirs, Scripture is just wrong (unless you correct what Scripture states).




.

 

[Albion]

Try reading without distraction.

I do. That's why I am able to see the many errors in your posts that you apparently are unaware of. It happens all the time.

 

[1689Dave]

Dave: Questions are not apologetics. And generally not permitted in debate. A debater asking a question in lieu of addresses points is evidence that they have no defense. Everyone here knows this. Questions are not substantiation. For anything;.





It's shocking to see the disrespect for Scripture. When Scripture FLAT OUT states something (such as "Jesus died for all" or "This is my Body") he feels perfectly fine telling God, "That's not true, you misspoke - what you are required by me to MEAN is the exact opposite of what you verbatim said." It just amazes me. The ego of it all! It is stunning. These folks will insist that SCRIPTURE needs to state doctrine, yet at all their new inventions, they do the opposite - their view is the opposite of what Scripture states (they LOVE to just throw in a "NOT" at all those points so that the God said the exact opposite of the truth and they gotta correct Him). It certainly makes it hard to discuss Scripture, when they hold that at every invention of theirs, Scripture is just wrong (unless you correct what Scripture states).

But the truth remains, we need your scriptures that refute Jesus in Jn. 10. There is no debate here, just a desire to see you refute Jesus. It's Jesus doing all the talking, not me. I just point to what He says.

 

[Josiah]

we need your scriptures that refute Jesus in Jn. 10. T

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.

And many more just like these.

Try READING them (the words there; delete no words, add no words). It will be a profound epiphany for you but ONLY if you hold that God tells the truth.

Now, the reason you just reference a chapter of the Bible and not quote anything there is because your view is missing. Nowhere in John Chapter 10 does it state, "Jesus did NOT die for all but ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY for some unknown few." You know that, I know that. Everyone knows that. It indicates that not all have faith, not all have personal justification, but you can't quote the verse that states your position because as you know, it never says that. You'll never admit this, but everyone knows it. And this is all you have.... which is why you keep referring to a chapter that doesn't state what you do, it's all you've got. Nothing.




.

 

[Albion]

But the truth remains, we need your scriptures that refute Jesus in Jn. 10.

Frankly, this kind of "when did you stop beating your wife?" questioning should not be allowed in a serious discussion.

 

[1689Dave]

Frankly, this kind of "when did you stop beating your wife?" questioning should not be allowed in a serious discussion.

No. I do not say a word. I point to two scriptures spoken by Jesus that prove universal free will atonement is wrong. And patiently wait for someone to refute his words.

 

[Josiah]

I point to two scriptures spoken by Jesus that prove universal free will atonement is wrong. .

That IS wrong. And no one here supports that. You present it as a red herring; a silly attempt to change the subject to something you CAN support from the issue at hand where you cannot support your position. But that's not the issue.


Here's the issue: Does the Bible state that Jesus died for all OR does it state that that's false, 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.

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."​

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.



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.... you'd 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).

Radical Calvinists (who actually repudiate Calvin on this point) 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 words "not" and "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]

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.

And many more just like these.

Try READING them (the words there; delete no words, add no words). It will be a profound epiphany for you but ONLY if you hold that God tells the truth.

Now, the reason you just reference a chapter of the Bible and not quote anything there is because your view is missing. Nowhere in John Chapter 10 does it state, "Jesus did NOT die for all but ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY for some unknown few." You know that, I know that. Everyone knows that. It indicates that not all have faith, not all have personal justification, but you can't quote the verse that states your position because as you know, it never says that. You'll never admit this, but everyone knows it. And this is all you have.... which is why you keep referring to a chapter that doesn't state what you do, it's all you've got. Nothing.




.

But you must think like a Hebrew of the first century to understand it.

Died for all who are saved. If he died for all as you say, ALL are saved.

 

[Josiah]

. If he died for all as you say, ALL are saved.

Only if we submit to your repudiation of faith. Yes, IF faith is a joke, irrelevant to personal justification, entirely unnecessary and useless, THEN yes your point would be credible. It's exactly what some Calvinists like you came to believe and thus split off from the Reformed movement to become Universalists. But we don't join you in your repudiation of the role of faith; we don't agree with you that personal justification depends ONLY on the death of Jesus - regardless of the presence of faith. We agree with Scripture that BOTH the Cross and faith are essential; both fully and completely the work and gift of God, the Cross given for all, faith given only for some. Exactly as God has stated. Exactly as the Church Fathers taught. Exactly as the Church Councils have declared. Exactly as every Christian believed before these tiny few radical Calvinists came along, rebuking Calvin for agreeing with the words of Scripture on this point.



.



.

 

[1689Dave]

Only if we submit to your repudiation of faith. Yes, IF faith is a joke, irrelevant to personal justification, entirely unnecessary and useless, THEN yes your point would be credible. It's exactly what some Calvinists like you came to believe and thus split off from the Reformed movement to become Universalists. But we don't join you in your repudiation of the role of faith; we don't agree with you that personal justification depends ONLY on the death of Jesus - regardless of the presence of faith. We agree with Scripture that BOTH the Cross and faith are essential; both fully and completely the work and gift of God, the Cross given for all, faith given only for some. Exactly as God has stated. Exactly as the Church Fathers taught. Exactly as the Church Councils have declared. Exactly as every Christian believed before these tiny few radical Calvinists came along, rebuking Calvin for agreeing with the words of Scripture on this point.



.



.

You say he died for everyone's sins. But all are not saved. No Judgement day if you are right, and we know this is not true.

 

[Josiah]

You say he died for everyone's sins.

That's exactly what the Bible states. As you've been shown many, many times.

But all are not saved.

That's exactly what the Bible states. As you've been shown many, many times.


It's a problem for you because, like those Univeralists who split off from radical Calvinism some 300 years ago, you repudiate the role of faith. Your entire apologetic (repeated so often) is: "If Jesus died for all then all are saved." You eliminate faith; your entire apologetic depends on faith being irrelevant, unnecessary, moot to the issue of personal justification. It's a heresy. And we will not join you in that heresy.

You seem to think you need to correct Jesus in John 3:16, you seem to think Jesus actually said, "For God so loves just a tiny few that He gave His only begotten Son exclusively to just those few (and I won't tell you who they are) so that whether they believe in what I (probably didn't) do for them or spit in My face, reject and repudiate me, it matters not because faith is a joke - if I died for them (and I probably didn't) then they will not parish but has everlasting life." But many of us know, that's not what He said. Your foundational apologetic ("If Jesus died for all then all are saved") is a heresy, a bold repudiation of Scripture, a lie - and we will NOT accept it. Your whole apologetic rests on a lie, a heresy.





.

 

[Albion]

But you must think like a Hebrew of the first century to understand it.

Died for all who are saved. If he died for all as you say, ALL are saved.

EVEN IF that were true about the thinking of those particular Hebrews, their thinking doesn't determine the truth or falsity or applicability of the principles we have been discussing. THEY are universal. Either Christ died for mankind or for his friends only. Or some people are going to heaven regardless of how they live or what they believe. Whatever you want.

BUT THAT does not mean that this one event that you present as if it were the be-all and end-all of the discussion we've been having for weeks actually IS the exclusive and final word on the subject.! Mountains of testimony from other BIble passages that could hardly be clearer are just pushed aside by you in favor of your own interpretation of this one event.

 

[1689Dave]

That's exactly what the Bible states. As you've been shown many, many times.




That's exactly what the Bible states. As you've been shown many, many times.


It's a problem for you because, like those Univeralists who split off from radical Calvinism some 300 years ago, you repudiate the role of faith. Your entire apologetic (repeated so often) is: "If Jesus died for all then all are saved." You eliminate faith; your entire apologetic depends on faith being irrelevant, unnecessary, moot to the issue of personal justification. It's a heresy. And we will not join you in that heresy.

You seem to think you need to correct Jesus in John 3:16, you seem to think Jesus actually said, "For God so loves just a tiny few that He gave His only begotten Son exclusively to just those few (and I won't tell you who they are) so that whether they believe in what I (probably didn't) do for them or spit in My face, reject and repudiate me, it matters not because faith is a joke - if I died for them (and I probably didn't) then they will not parish but has everlasting life." But many of us know, that's not what He said. Your foundational apologetic ("If Jesus died for all then all are saved") is a heresy, a bold repudiation of Scripture, a lie - and we will NOT accept it. Your whole apologetic rests on a lie, a heresy.





.

So if he paid for all sins, including the sin of rejecting Him, Why the Judgement on the last day?