Jesus died for the sins of the world

[Albion]

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

Well those who are his...the saved, that is...WILL ALSO STAND BEFORE GOD at the judgment!

That is undeniable, but here you are denying it.

 

[1689Dave]

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.

But you cannot understand the teaching unless you think like them. Americanised "Christianity" is in over its head thinking as they do.

 

[Albion]

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.

False. You asked Josiah to refute Jesus' words as though the words of Jesus can be refuted. It was just a debating trick and all too obvious.

 

[1689Dave]

Well those who are his...the saved, that is...WILL ALSO STAND BEFORE GOD at the judgment!

That is undeniable, but here you are denying it.

For their rewards, not for Hell.

 

[1689Dave]

False. You asked Josiah to refute Jesus' words as though the words of Jesus can be refuted. It was just a debating trick and all too obvious.

How futile would that be? Yet all I show is Jesus refuting him.

 

[Josiah]

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

@1689Dave
@Albion


AGAIN, your heresy of repudiating faith. It's foundational to you.

Yes, the sin of rejecting Christ is forgiveable, Jesus died for that sin. BUT that is apprehended, applied BY FAITH. There is no forgiveness apart from faith. You are just eliminating faith, insisting that if Jesus died for sin ERGO there is forgiveness - whether one accepts/trusts/relies/apprehends that death for them or denies it all, repudiates and reject Him, spits in his face. You are basing your whole theology on a heresy... the VERY SAME ONE that caused so many radical Calvinists like you to become Universalists.



.

 

[1689Dave]

AGAIN, your heresy of repudiating faith. It's foundational to you.

Yes, the sin of rejecting Christ is forgiveable, Jesus died for that sin. BUT that is apprehended, applied BY FAITH. There is no forgiveness apart from faith. You are just eliminating faith, insisting that if Jesus died for sin ERGO there is forgiveness - whether one accepts/trusts/relies/apprehends that death for them or denies it all, repudiates and reject Him, spits in his face. You are basing your whole theology on a heresy... the VERY SAME ONE that caused so many radical Calvinists like you to become Universalists.



.

What about the sin of unbelief? Looks like a lot of people you claim to be saved going to hell on judgment day.

 

[Albion]

For their rewards, not for Hell.

Of course, but you wrote this--

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

I gave you the answer to your question. There obviously IS a reason for someone whose sins have been forgiven to stand before God at the Judgment.

However, that is a correction to this particular error on your part. It doesn't change anything about your unwillingness to admit --or inability to understand--that there is something other than just God naming the elect and the damned before their births (if that were actually the case).

 

[1689Dave]

Of course, but you wrote this--


I gave you the answer to your question. There obviously IS a reason for someone whose sins have been forgiven to stand before God at the Judgment.

Only to receive their heavenly rewards. “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.” John 5:24 (KJV 1900)

 

[Albion]

Only to receive their heavenly rewards.

You scoffed at the idea that someone who is not hell-bound would stand before God at the Judgment. Well, the Bible says the opposite. And now you are posting that they WILL stand in judgment as though that was what you originally wrote. We know that it is not what you wrote. Your statement has been quoted and correction was in order.

 

[1689Dave]

You scoffed at the idea that someone who is not hell-bound would stand before God at the Judgment. Well, the Bible says the opposite. And now you are posting that they WILL stand in judgment as though that was what you originally wrote. We know that it is not, what you wrote. Your statement has been quoted and correction was in order.

“Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.” John 5:24 (KJV 1900)

 

[Josiah]

What about the sin of unbelief?

Where there is faith in Christ, it is forgiven - because faith is embracing something real, the death of Jesus for our sins. Exactly as the Bible so often states.

But AGAIN, we see your heresy of repudiating faith. It's foundational to you.

Yes, the sin of rejecting Christ is forgivable, Jesus died for that sin. BUT that is apprehended, applied BY FAITH. There is no forgiveness apart from faith. You are just eliminating faith, insisting that if Jesus died for sin ERGO there is forgiveness - whether one accepts/trusts/relies/apprehends that death for them or denies it all, repudiates and reject Him, spits in his face. You are basing your whole theology on a heresy... the VERY SAME ONE that caused so many radical Calvinists like you to become Universalists.

Looks like a lot of people you claim to be saved going to hell on judgment day.

"He justifies him who has faith in Jesus Christ." (Romans 3:16)

“God so loved the world that He gave His only Son that whoever believes in Him will not perish but has everlasting life!” (John 3:16),

“Everyone that believes in Christ receives forgiveness of sins through His name” (Acts 10:43)

“Sirs, what must we do to be saved?” They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved.” (Acts 16:30-31)

“For by grace you have been saved through faith in Christ, and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God” (Ephesians 2:8)


BOTH the Cross and faith. Not either/or but both/and. I'm not saying that people will go to heaven without faith, that's your position, your foundational apologetic, "If Jesus died for all THEN all are going to heaven." You must repudiate what the Bible expressly states and the church has always believed: You insist God is wrong when He says Jesus died for all AND the God is wrong when He says that faith is necessary.

“Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.” John 5:24 (KJV 1900)

Now, where does that state that Jesus did NOT die for all but ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY for some unknown few? Where does it say that if Jesus died for you, you have everlasting life whether you "believeth" or spit in His face cuz faith don't matter for nothing?

But all sins forgiven = No Judgement day.

No. Judgement Day is for EVERYONE. But for Christians - those with faith in Him and His Cross - there is forgiveness and salvation.

I reject you foundational heresy that there is forgiveness and salvation apart from faith. Your foundational apologetic (If Jesus died for all then all are saved) is a heresy. It rejects the role of faith.






.

 

[1689Dave]

Where there is faith, it is forgiven - because faith is embracing something real, the death of Jesus for that (and all) sins.

But AGAIN, we see your heresy of repudiating faith. It's foundational to you.

Yes, the sin of rejecting Christ is forgivable, Jesus died for that sin. BUT that is apprehended, applied BY FAITH. There is no forgiveness apart from faith. You are just eliminating faith, insisting that if Jesus died for sin ERGO there is forgiveness - whether one accepts/trusts/relies/apprehends that death for them or denies it all, repudiates and reject Him, spits in his face. You are basing your whole theology on a heresy... the VERY SAME ONE that caused so many radical Calvinists like you to become Universalists.





"He justifies him who has faith in Jesus Christ." (Romans 3:16)

“God so loved the world that He gave His only Son that whoever believes in Him will not perish but has everlasting life!” (John 3:16),

“Everyone that believes in Christ receives forgiveness of sins through His name” (Acts 10:43)

“Sirs, what must we do to be saved?” They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved.” (Acts 16:30-31)

“For by grace you have been saved through faith in Christ, and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God” (Ephesians 2:8)

BOTH the Cross and faith. Not either/or but both/and. I'm not saying that people will go to heaven without faith, that's your position, your foundational apologetic, "If Jesus died for all THEN all are going to heaven." You must repudiate what the Bible expressly states and the church has always believed: You insist God is wrong when He says Jesus died for all AND the God is wrong when He says that not all have faith and that faith is essential.





.

But all sins forgiven = No Judgement day.

 

[Doran]

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

Josiah: 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."

I have. How do these passages "suggest the opposite"? Pehraps you should consult a dictionary to find out what "many" and "all" mean. Also, your paragraph above is incoherent because you equivocated. You want it both ways! You admit that the two terms in question aren't identical, i.e. they're not synonymous, yet you also say they're not contradictory, even though they don't mean the same thing. Such a wordsmith you are.

Thankfully, 5-pt. Calvinists don't have to play these kinds of inane games. We can reconcile the "many" with the" "all", since the former term is always used quantitatively, whereas the latter isn't, since it's often used qualitatively.

Doran said:
Rom 5:15, 19

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

Only because v. 19 qualifies 18! Paul used Hebrew paralellism in making this analogy by contrast between the two Adams. If you ignore v. 19 which qualifies both parts of the preceding verse, then you must also admit to universal salvation, since part B of v.18 reads: "so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men."

Understand this: If you insist that both "alls" in v. 18 are used quantitatively, then Paul must be saying that Jesus' atonement brings life for ALL men in that quantitative sense. How? Because his atoning work resulted in justification that brings that life to all! But this interpretation presents more than a few problems with other scriptures, doesn't? What about all those passages that talk about how justification is by faith? Yet, Paul doesn't mention faith in this passage! So...either Paul was very confused and contradicted himself right in this very epistle or you, sir, are confused.

But I have a better option for interpreting this passage since it's biblical! Paul, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, knew exactly what he was saying in this closely worded passage. Both ALLs in v. 18 are used qualitatively. Therefore, no problem whatsoever with the rest of scripture! The evidence I have for saying this is all biblical! Once again, v. 19 qualifies v. 18 with the use of two MANYS. But not only this, part A of v. 18 cannot possibly be understood in the quantitative sense because it would contradict Gen 3:15! Here's how part A reads: "Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men..."

But the problem here is that not ALL men (in the quantitative sense) were condemned; for Gen 3:15 speaks of two classes of mankind: The godly seed of the Woman and Satan's ungodly seed. And it is only this latter category of men that were condemned. ALL the ungodly seed of Satan were condemned. How we can know this with great certitude is that God saved Eve right on the spot! He reconciled her to Himself since he placed enmity between her and the devil and between her seed and the devil. Since God sovereignly decreed enmity between Eve and the devil, then this immediately implies reconcilliation. Eve could not be an enemy of God and an enemy of Satan all at once and simultaneously. (In other words Eve was one of God's elect!) Therefore, Eve herself was not condemned, since God sovereignly reconciled her to Himself. And since Eve is part of the human race, than the "all" in part A of v.18 cannot be understood quantitatively because Eve was never part of the "all"! The best we can say about part A, therefore, is that MANY were condemned. And the many that were condemned were ALL those in Adam, since Adam was of Satan's ungodly seed! Therefore, the "all" in both parts of v. 18 are used in the qualitative sense. In B part, the justification that brings life to all men pertains to ALL those in the Last Adam but not in the first Adam.

Everything I have said here harmonizes nicely with the entire bible. So, again, if you're going to insist that the "all" in part A is used in the quantitative sense, then to be consistent you'd have say the same thing about part B, in which case you'd wind up with universal salvation! Good luck with that heresy.

 

[Josiah]

I have. How do these passages "suggest the opposite"?

There are two positions being debated here.
1 That Scripture states that Jesus died for all
2. That Scripture states that Jesus did NOT die for all but ONLY for some few.

I quoted 4 Scriptures that state Jesus died for all. Verbatim. Flat-out. Undeniably.

You gave some that obviously do not state "Jesus did not die for all but ONLY for some unknown few." The verses you quoted do not state the opposite of my position. None of them contradict it.

Nor do I think they are somehow modifying such, as if "many" tyically (or even can) mean "just an unknown few." "Many" can well mean "all" but I find it hard that it means "only some unknown few." When Scripture so clearly says "ALL" I suspect He means that; "many" doesn't contradict that.

EXAMPLE: "For all have sinned and all short...." The Bible (only once - not over 4 times) verbatim states that. BUT there is a verse that states, "Jesus was without sin." SO, the Bible itself - verbatim, flat-out, in black and white - makes an exception, Jesus. And so we accept that one exception to the "all." We generally don't say that Pope Alexander VI is an exception because Jesus is the only one God indicated. Stating that JESUS is without sin (an exception) does not mean ergo all blonde haired persons are exempt, it means Jesus is. Scripture states something - and states one exception. Yes, the Bible can give an exception to its "all." Where is your verse that state, "Jesus did NOT die for ___________." If you find it, that will mean that _________ is exempted from the "all" and we can discuss that. Until then....

Thankfully, 5-pt. Calvinists don't have to play these kinds of inane games. We can reconcile the "many" with the" "all", since the former term is always used quantitatively.

1. Those who insist Calvin was wrong and that the Bible states "Jesus did not die for all but only, exclusively, solely for some" do not "reconcile" anything. They just think that "many" = "some unknown few," and that "all" means "not all."

2. There are not two contradictory things stated in the Bible that need to be "reconciled."

3. You argue that "many" = "an unknown few." But this is not what the Greek states. You are reading an implication into this passage that doesn’t exist in the Greek. Jesus doesn’t say that he’ll die for “many of us.” He literally says that his blood is poured out “for the many.”

4. Where is the "except for _________" in the 4 verses I gave? Where is the verse anywhere in Scripture that states, "Jesus did NOT die for all but ONLY for some unknown few?" Where is your exception stated? Or can you just impose some exception when and where you like? Surely, you think not.

5. The word "all" appears over 5,600 times in the Bible. Do you REALLY want to base your apologetic on the claim that "all" never means "all" but always has exemptions? I can go there, but I doubt you want to. To the example, "For all have sinned." Why not claim that the Virgin Mary is an exception since "all" must have exceptions? Why not claim that the current Pope or that Joseph Smith or yourself or Donald Trump are exceptions since you don't need any exceptions to be stated by God and you claim that the word "all" must have exceptions?


There are several points related to this in the post to you that you reference here, many skipped.



.

 

[Doran]

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.

I didn't add anything. It's an indisputable fact that "all" can often be understood in the qualitative sense. You just blindly assume that "all" is always used quantitatively.

 

[Albion]

I didn't add anything. It's an indisputable fact that "all" can often be understood in the qualitative sense. You just blindly assume that "all" is always used quantitatively.

Show us how every one of the many examples from Scripture that have been posted here and which seem to be saying every one ("all")...

...actually should be understood to be saying "good ones" or something like that ("qualitative sense") instead.

And I don't mean to demand the impossible or something enormously time-consuming, but if some of the Bible passages mean "all" when they say "all," your challenge fails. The Bible still is referring to the mass of humanity rather than to a select few.

While it may be the case that the word "all" can be used as you say, that doesn't mean this is how it is used in every one of the many Scripture passages that have been posted here repeatedly (if in any of them at all). And that in turn means that there is no reason to dismiss the whole lot on that basis.

I don't think I have been "blindly assuming" anything, but your counter claim surely is in need of some evidence to support it .

 

[Doran]

Doran said:
Isa 53:4-6

Josiah: 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."

You don't care much about understanding in its three-fold context, do you? (By three-fold I mean the immediate, intermediate and remote contexts ( in other words, consider the entire bible!) You're very dismissive about understanding the personal pronoun "us" and who it refers to -- even though I cautioned all readers to carefully consider the personal pronouns in this messianic passage.

So, who was the prophet's audience that he was addressing? May I be so bold as to suggest that he was addressing God's Old Covenant people? Hint: To whom did the Jewish Messiah appear in order to fulfill this prophecy? Did not he Messiah appear to His Old Covenant people Israel? Therefore, once again, the "us all" must be understood in a limited sense as referring to a particular class of people. After all, the prophet did include himself in with his Jewish brothers and sisters.

Further, we know from a [remote] NT passage that not all Jews were really Jewish in God's eyes. For not all Jews were children of the promise (Rom 9:8ff.) In fact, the vast majority of Jews, according to the flesh, were covenant-breakers (apostates). So it is eminently reasonable to deduce that the Messiah bore the iniquities of ALL the real Jews -- the children of promise (the elect!) -- the real covenant people of God. The "us all", then, are all the Jewish children of promise.

 

[Albion]

Using your approach to dismantling the language of the Bible, we who agree with the great majority of Christians and their churches for the past two millennia could just as easily argue that all references to any Elect is just another way of saying -- and understanding -- the people who will in the end be saved, but not pre-selected as strict Calvinists want to think. Indeed, that is one of the dictionary definitions of the word: an exclusive group.

 

[Albion]

duplicate post.