Jesus died for the sins of the world

[Doran]

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

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

While it may be the case that the word "all" can be used as you say, to dismiss every last example from Scripture on that basis is difficult to accept without something more compelling than the claim itself.

There is certainly nothing that amounts to "blindly assuming" on my part, but your counter claim surely requires some evidence to support it.

Here's a little advice. You lose all credibility when you start misrepresenting an opponent's views. I never said that every time the word "all" is used that it's used in a limited sense. In fact, quite often I have said that is OFTEN used in that sense. The term "often" qualifies (limits) the usage. I used often because I know that "all" isn't always used in a limited sense. I know that it is used at times quantitatively.

Further, I have given plenty of examples of when it is used qualitatively. Jn 3:16 is a great example, since God cannot possibly love each and every person in the world (all people) quantitatively, for ALL the unregenerate people in the world (those in Adam) bear the ungodly characteristics set forth Paul's indictment of the ungodly in Rom 3:10-17. Since all the ungodly, unregenerate people in this dark world do NOT fear God, God cannot love them since Psalm 103 tells us multiple times that God loves those who fear him -- who keep his covenant and who obey his precepts.

Therefore, if you're going to insist that God loves both God-fearers and non-God-fearers, YOU need to prove that from scripture. I have proved that God loves those who fear him and obey him. Now YOU need to prove that He also loves those who don't fear him and don't obey him.

However, since I KNOW you won't be able to do this then I can tell you that in order to avoid having Jn. 3:16 conflict with Romans 3 and Psalm 103, it is eminently reasonable to infer that the "world" is to be understood in a limited (qualitative) sense. Most especially since Jesus explicitly told his Father in John 17 that he wasn't praying for the [entire] world that his Father "so loved"! Furthermore, God has NO redemptive covenant relationship with the ungodly world -- only with his elect! God saves only those who he has sovereignly brought into a personal, intimate, loving relationship with himself.

My understanding of scripture avoids these nasty dilemmas, whereas the falsehood you believe can only create endless problems.

 

[Josiah]

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.

@Doran

You submitted the Scriptures that you indicated state that Jesus did not die for all but ONLY for some unknown few. I addressed every one, noting the obvious, none of them state that. Again, these are Scriptures YOU presented, that you indicated state that Jesus ONLY and FEW (that's the critical, essential thing since that IS the point).

I submitted several. Among them...

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.


Now, I've read the books of First Timothy and Second Corinthians and Hebrews MANY times, DOZENS of times; I've attended Bible studies on these books. And I see nothing in them that would suggest that these verses mean "Jesus did not die for all people but only, exclusively, solely for some unknown few."

I've also studied the Church Fathers (albeit, no expert) and Church Councils... and I know that they understood that Jesus died for all people; none taught that Jesus did NOT die for all but ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY for some unknown FEW. I know that Luther and Calvin taught that.

Now, I don't agree that ERGO all are personally justified, faith being irrelevant (that's Dave's position), I don't think the "goats" (those without faith) are thus saved. I hold that Jesus died for the elect and for many... and also for blonde girls and for Americans and for Donald
Trump but I don't hold taht THEREFORE they are personally justified (I hold faith is also necessary). I do not believe that faith is a good work of dead people, I believe that BOTH the CROSS and FAITH are completely, totally the work and gift of God. But I also agree with Scripture and Christians that God meant it when He so often stated that Jesus died for all. That's how I know He died for me (I'm an "all"); if God had made that SO clear, I'd never know if Jesus was for ME, if the Gospel is THERE for me, if my faith is apprehending something for ME.

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.

As I said, we COULD argue if "us" refers to all or not. But "us" does not mean "ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY some unknown few. And I think we have that issue cleared up by MANY Scriptures, Such as these...



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 like them.


"Us" isn't a contradiction to "all." "Us" is not the equal of "an unknown few, probably not including you." "Many" probably doesn't usually mean "some unknown FEW." You argue that "many" = supports the "L" position of "some 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.”

Now YOU need to prove that He also loves those who don't fear him and don't obey him.

1. The issue is this: Does Scripture state that Jesus died for all OR does it state that Jesus did NOT die for all but ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY for some few. We've proved it often states that He did, you've supplied nothing that stated HE did NOT.

2. I disagree with your assumption that God ONLY loves those who first love Him and obey Him. Here's what Scripture states:

"Not that we love God but that God loved us" 1 John 4:16

"God shows His love for us in that while we were enemies, Christ died for us" Romans 5:8

"You were dead in your sins..." Ephesians 2:1

"He saved us by virtue of His mercy." Titus 3:5

"Christ died for the ungodly." Romans 5:6

There is no verse that states, "Jesus died ONLY for those who first loved Him and obeyed Him."




.

 

[Josiah]

. Jn 3:16 is a great example, since God cannot possibly love each and every person in the world (all people)

@Doran


Where does John 3:16 state that Jesus did not die for all but ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY for some unknown few?

What about these...

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 like them.

Psalm 103 tells us multiple times that God loves those who fear him -- who keep his covenant and who obey his precepts.

Logical fallacy, obviously.


It does not say "ONLY those who love Him."

The whole concept of grace is that it extends to those who don't deserve it but who need it. If God only loves those who love Him first, then no one is loved by God. If He only died for those who had no sin then He died for no one.

Now YOU need to prove that He also loves those who don't fear him and don't obey him. "

No, you need to prove that God ONLY died for those who first loved Him and were obedient to them; He ONLY died for those who were sinless, holy and righteousness.

No, you did not 'prove' your position. Without the "ONLY" your ONLY point is missing.

Here is what the Bible states,

"Not that we love God but that God loved us" 1 John 4:16

"God shows His love for us in that while we were enemies, Christ died for us" Romans 5:8

"You were dead in your sins..." Ephesians 2:1

"He saved us by virtue of His mercy." Titus 3:5

"Christ died for the ungodly." Romans 5:6


And many more. The Bible does NOT say that God ONLY died for those who FIRST loved Him, that He died ONLY for the righteous, holy and sinless. Yes, if there were any sinless people, He died for them too but there is no verse that says He ONLY died for such ("for all have sinned...." You've read that verse).

many

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.”




.

 

[Albion]

Here's a little advice. You lose all credibility when you start misrepresenting an opponent's views.

Oh, please.

I never said that every time the word "all" is used that it's used in a limited sense.

And I covered that. If this is your position, then Josiah is correct. It is not the case that out of the many, many references in Scripture to "all," it is necessary for you only to find just one instance when it means something else in order to invalidate all the others AND substitute for them the meaning of that one you might have found.

Therefore, if you're going to insist that God loves both God-fearers and non-God-fearers,

YOU need to prove that from scripture. I have proved that God loves those who fear him and obey him. Now YOU need to prove that He also loves those who don't fear him and don't obey him.

The issue before us isn't whether God loves sin or not. It's whether he loves mankind. And there is plenty in Scripture that shows he does. Sin, of course, cannot coexist with God, but He deigned to become one of his own creatures, to die although innocent of any wrongdoing, and all of this for people who had been lost in sin. So, your thesis is dead wrong.

 

[Doran]

Hermeneutics 101

I think you UABs (unlimited atonement believers) think I must be telling you some very strange thing when a few days a go, I essentially stated that a fundamentally important hermeneutical principle is to try to understand how the original audience of a prophet or an apostle would have understood the writer. And I zeroed in on Jn 3:16 because so many people ASSUME that the term "world" in that passage must mean every man, woman and child in it. But is that how a first century, God-fearing, pious Jew have understood the text? Not hardly! A pious Jew would have known his Jewish scriptures (i.e. OT), as the OT would have been virtually his only interpretive framework with which to work. Here is why such a Jew would not have understood this NT text the way so may of us moderns sadly spin it.

1. Numerous OT passages explicitly teach what kind of people God loves. He loves those who love him, who are merciful, who are just, who are God-fearing, who are obedient, etc. Conversely, one would be very hard-pressed to find a single passage that says that God loves sinners. And it would be just as difficult to find any gospel preaching either by Christ or any of his apostles wherein they told anyone plainly and unequivocally that God loves the unrighteous just as much as he loves the righteous.

2. Other OT passages explicitly teach who and what God hates, despises or loathes. God won't even hear a prayer of an unrepentant sinner (Jn 9:31-32), yet so many today teach that God loves every sinner to death! He loves them to no end, but won't even listen to their prayers!? And, yet, none of you think this is wee bit strange? You can't detect any incongruity here?

3. The Abrahamic Covenant and, indeed, many of the prophets predicted a day when the Gentile nations would also be brought into a personal, covenant relationship with YHWH. A Jewish mind thought in terms of only two kinds of people in the world: clean and unclean, circumcised and uncircumcised, covenant and non-covenant people, and Jews and Gentiles. Therefore, the "world" to them consisted solely of these two kinds of people.

4. The Jews being the only chosen, covenant people of God up until the Cross of Christ fully understood that a personal, intimate relationship with the Creator of the Redeemer of mankind is only possible in the context of covenantal commitment -- a contractual agreement, as it were, unilaterally drawn up by God; and that no one in the history of the world ever decided that they would grace God's presence by choosing for themselves to enter into such an agreement. God not only drew up the terms and conditions to these covenants but sovereignly and freely chooses in eternity who will become participants with Him in them.

So, yes, I'm on solid biblical ground by understanding that universal sounding terms or phrases are often used in a limited (qualitative) sense in scripture for the reasons stated above. By God's grace, I have the mindset of a God-fearing, pious Jew, who also by the grace of God he has me decent knowledge of both Testaments.

 

[Doran]

Oh, please.



And I covered that. If this is your position, then Josiah is correct. It is not the case that out of the many, many references in Scripture to "all," it is necessary for you only to find just one instance when it means something else in order to invalidate all the others AND substitute for them the meaning of that one you might have found.



The issue before us isn't whether God loves sin or not. It's whether he loves mankind. And there is plenty in Scripture that shows he does. Sin, of course, cannot coexist with God, but He deigned to become one of his own creatures, to die although innocent of any wrongdoing, and all of this for people who had been lost in sin. So, your thesis is dead wrong.

CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT means everything. How I determine how a word is used or even what the meaning is in a particular passage, I rely heavily on the three-fold context of scripture and usage examples. Trying to interpret a text apart from its context is a pretext!

Here's are two examples: How would you interpret "all men everywhere" in Act 21:28 and "all people" in Lk 2:31. Would you interpret both passages in the unlimited, quantitative sense?

Also, please give just one text in scripture that essentially states that God loves sinners. Give me one, please. You are so dead sure, so I have to think that you have several explicit passages handy....but I'm only asking for one because I'm in a generous mood.

 

[Josiah]

Hermeneutics 101

I think you UABs (unlimited atonement believers) think I must be telling you some very strange thing when a few days a go, I essentially stated that a fundamentally important hermeneutical principle is to try to understand how the original audience of a prophet or an apostle would have understood the writer. And I zeroed in on Jn 3:16 because so many people ASSUME that the term "world" in that passage must mean every man, woman and child in it. But is that how a first century, God-fearing, pious Jew have understood the text? Not hardly! A pious Jew would have known his Jewish scriptures (i.e. OT), as the OT would have been virtually his only interpretive framework with which to work. Here is why such a Jew would not have understood this NT text the way so may of us moderns sadly spin it.

1. Numerous OT passages explicitly teach what kind of people God loves. He loves those who love him, who are merciful, who are just, who are God-fearing, who are obedient, etc. Conversely, one would be very hard-pressed to find a single passage that says that God loves sinners. And it would be just as difficult to find any gospel preaching either by Christ or any of his apostles wherein they told anyone plainly and unequivocally that God loves the unrighteous just as much as he loves the righteous.

2. Other OT passages explicitly teach who and what God hates, despises or loathes. God won't even hear a prayer of an unrepentant sinner (Jn 9:31-32), yet so many today teach that God loves every sinner to death! He loves them to no end, but won't even listen to their prayers!? And, yet, none of you think this is wee bit strange? You can't detect any incongruity here?

3. The Abrahamic Covenant and, indeed, many of the prophets predicted a day when the Gentile nations would also be brought into a personal, covenant relationship with YHWH. A Jewish mind thought in terms of only two kinds of people in the world: clean and unclean, circumcised and uncircumcised, covenant and non-covenant people, and Jews and Gentiles. Therefore, the "world" to them consisted solely of these two kinds of people.

4. The Jews being the only chosen, covenant people of God up until the Cross of Christ fully understood that a personal, intimate relationship with the Creator of the Redeemer of mankind is only possible in the context of covenantal commitment -- a contractual agreement, as it were, unilaterally drawn up by God; and that no one in the history of the world ever decided that they would grace God's presence by choosing for themselves to enter into such an agreement. God not only drew up the terms and conditions to these covenants but sovereignly and freely chooses in eternity who will become participants with Him in them.

So, yes, I'm on solid biblical ground by understanding that universal sounding terms or phrases are often used in a limited (qualitative) sense in scripture for the reasons stated above. By God's grace, I have the mindset of a God-fearing, pious Jew, who also by the grace of God he has me decent knowledge of both Testaments.

@ Doran,


I know of no sound hermeneutical principle that states if we disagree with a lot of Scriptures, we can just state that they MEAN the exact opposite of what they state. And I question any hermeneutic that ends up insisted that most Scriptures mean the exact opposite of what they state, and any that leads folks to heresy, such as denying the role of faith in personal justification and also to Arminianism and Pelagianism - that we earn our salvation by our merits of love and obedience, that God only saves those who deserve it. When a priciple leads people to flat-out denounce and repudiate what the Bible SO often states.... and leads to heresy.... seems pretty strange and horrific. I also concluded that it's insistence that the word "all" always has exceptions (and they need not be mentioned in Scripture) and that "many" must mean "only some unknown few." Or that we should read Scripture like Jews and not like Christians. Usually we look to Christians for understanding Scripture, not Jews.

And often you seem to be fighting a fight no one here is fighting - and thus MISSING the whole point. NO ONE HERE is saying anything against predestination or covenantal commitment, etc. No one is saying that unbelievers have eternal life or that God gives faith to goats. You seem to be arguing against positions no one here has taken. I know you firmly believe God has personally given you some extraordinary "understanding" but I invite you to consider yourself accountable and not inerrant. Those who claim they alone are inerrant and God-led cannot engage in discussion and will not consider anything; if they are wrong they will die in that since they will not consider anything - not even the literal, verbatim words of God or the witness of His church.

Doran, I'm just quoting Scripture - VERBATIM. And you are denying every one of them...with NOT ONE Scripture that says what you do. I'm noting what was believed and taught by the Church Fathers, a Church Council, 1500 years of universal, unanimous faith and belief of Christians (including John Calvin and Martin Luther)... and you are denying all of them. All because of some strange "principle" that suggests Scripture typically (even always on some subjects) MEANS the exact opposite of what that state, and that we should read Scripture like Jews rather than as Christians. That "all" always includes exceptions (that need not be stated by God but by a Jew). That "For the many" must mean "only for an unknown few." Yes, those are "strange."

And if you ever found even one verse that states your position, "Jesus die NOT die for all but ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY for some unknown few" then quote it. We've quoted several where God verbatim states the EXACT OPPOSITE of your view, but let's pretend that yeah God usually doesn't mean what He states (never in this case). Okay. But where does it state your position? Where is the "Jesus did NOT die for all but ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY for some unknown few?"


See posts 841 875, 882 and 883.







.

 

[Doran]

@Doran

You submitted the Scriptures that you indicated state that Jesus did not die for all but ONLY for some unknown few. I addressed every one, noting the obvious, none of them state that. Again, these are Scriptures YOU presented, that you indicated state that Jesus ONLY and FEW (that's the critical, essential thing since that IS the point).

I submitted several. Among them...

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.


Now, I've read the books of First Timothy and Second Corinthians and Hebrews MANY times, DOZENS of times; I've attended Bible studies on these books. And I see nothing in them that would suggest that these verses mean "Jesus did not die for all people but only, exclusively, solely for some unknown few."

I've also studied the Church Fathers (albeit, no expert) and Church Councils... and I know that they understood that Jesus died for all people; none taught that Jesus did NOT die for all but ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY for some unknown FEW. I know that Luther and Calvin taught that.

Now, I don't agree that ERGO all are personally justified, faith being irrelevant (that's Dave's position), I don't think the "goats" (those without faith) are thus saved. I hold that Jesus died for the elect and for many... and also for blonde girls and for Americans and for Donald
Trump but I don't hold taht THEREFORE they are personally justified (I hold faith is also necessary). I do not believe that faith is a good work of dead people, I believe that BOTH the CROSS and FAITH are completely, totally the work and gift of God. But I also agree with Scripture and Christians that God meant it when He so often stated that Jesus died for all. That's how I know He died for me (I'm an "all"); if God had made that SO clear, I'd never know if Jesus was for ME, if the Gospel is THERE for me, if my faith is apprehending something for ME.




As I said, we COULD argue if "us" refers to all or not. But "us" does not mean "ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY some unknown few. And I think we have that issue cleared up by MANY Scriptures, Such as these...



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 like them.


"Us" isn't a contradiction to "all." "Us" is not the equal of "an unknown few, probably not including you." "Many" probably doesn't usually mean "some unknown FEW."


As for "many"...


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.”




.

Well, make YOUR case that "US" in the Isaiah 53 passage means "all" Go ahead. Make it! I can make my case. So make yours. Can you make a substantive argument?

Also, you again MISREPRESENT my position by putting words into my mouth. Not a very ethical thing to do by the way, especially for a professing Christian. I have never argued that "many = an unknown few." That is your favorite slogan. Besides how can many = a few? Of course, you want it both ways because you also basically said that many = all. It seems you're a tad confused. Does "many" = all or does "many" = a few?

But again, these "few" are unknown to whom, precisely? I'm dying to find this out.

One more thing before I take my leave for the evening: Do you think Rev 7:9 is referring to a few people, many people or all people in the distributive sense?

Also, if Jesus died for all, then his blood would have had to be poured out for all. How does "poured out for many" = an atonement for all? It's meaningless to say that he atoned for the sins of all men, yet only poured out his blood for a fraction of those men. You're engaging in doublespeak.

Enjoy the rest of your evening.

 

[Doran]

@ Doran,


I know of no sound hermeneutical principle that states if we disagree with a lot of Scriptures, we can just state that they MEAN the exact opposite of what they state. OR that the word "all" always has exceptions (and they need not be mentioned in Scripture) and that "many" must mean "only some unknown few." Or that we should read Scripture like Jews and not like Christians. Usually we look to Christians for understanding Scripture, not Jews.

And often you seem to be fighting a fight no one here is fighting - and thus MISSING the whole point. NO ONE HERE is saying anything against predestination or covenantal commitment, etc. No one is saying that unbelievers have eternal life or that God gives faith to goats. You seem to be arguing against positions no one here has taken. I know you firmly believe God has personally given you some extraordinary "understanding" but I invite you to consider yourself accountable and not inerrant. Those who claim they alone are inerrant and God-led cannot engage in discussion and will not consider anything; if they are wrong they will die in that since they will not consider anything - not even the literal, verbatim words of God or the witness of His church.

Doran, I'm just quoting Scripture - VERBATIM. And you are denying every one of them...with NOT ONE Scripture that says what you do. I'm noting what was believed and taught by the Church Fathers, a Church Council, 1500 years of universal, unanimous faith and belief of Christians (including John Calvin and Martin Luther)... and you are denying all of them. All because of some strange "principle" that suggests Scripture typically (even always on some subjects) MEANS the exact opposite of what that state, and that we should read Scripture like Jews rather than as Christians. That "all" always includes exceptions (that need not be stated by God but by a Jew). That "For the many" must mean "only for an unknown few." Yes, those are "strange."

And if you ever found even one verse that states your position, "Jesus die NOT die for all but ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY for some unknown few" then quote it. We've quoted several where God verbatim states the EXACT OPPOSITE of your view, but let's pretend that yeah God usually doesn't mean what He states (never in this case). Okay. But where does it state your position? Where is the "Jesus did NOT die for all but ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY for some unknown few?"


See posts 841 875, 882 and 883.







.

The devil can quote scripture too. In fact, I bet he knows scripture better than most of us. The issue is not what you quote, it's your off-the-wall interpretations that contradict other scriptures. For example, when God instituted the Mosaic Covenant with Israel and established the Levitical Priesthood, and had the temple built, etc. so that the priests could make sacrifices for the people, were those sacrifices, especially by the High Priest on the Day of Atonement, efficacious for all the peoples in the world -- for all the surrounding nations -- or just for the chosen, covenant people of God?

And I did find several verses that limits the atonement to just MANY. Jesus gave his life as a ransom for MANY -- not all. Of course, you have to figure out if Many = ALL or just a very few. But that's your problem,. Was Jesus confused: He didn't know the difference between many and all? One thing is certain: you are certainly confused. You don't know what "many" means anymore.

 

[Josiah]

how can many = a few?

Good point.

You went to some length to indicate that "many" destroys what God states, "Jesus died for all." You indicated it makes God's so often repeated statement of "all" impossible. And that it supports your position that Jesus did NOT die for all but ONLY for a few (the "L" of TULIP). I rejected that "many" repudiates God's all, making it impossible that God means "all."

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.” Big difference.

You insisted that "all" in the Bible ALWAYS means there are exceptions. The word appears 5,603 in the Bible and you said it ALWAYS means there are exceptions. And it seems they don't have to be stated by God, anyone can say what are the exceptions.

I realize you seem to be all over the map, but there is ONLY ONE ISSUE HERE. Does Scripture state that Jesus died for all (the position of nearly all Christians for 2000 years and the declaration of a Church Council and what God has stated many times - verbatim - in Scripture) OR does Scripture state that Jesus did NOT die for all but ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY for some unknown few? THAT'S THE DISCUSSION. THAT'S THE ISSUE.

We gave our Scriptures that state our position.
You gave no Scriptures that states the other position.

Do you think Rev 7:9 is referring to a few people, many people or all people?

More diversions? Do you know what the issue is?

But yes, John IS saying that his vision is that in heaven there will be believers praising God from all nations and languages. Sure, you can say "That's IMPOSSIBLE so God must not be telling the truth." But is it impossible? Why assume God is wrong here, that he MEANS something VERY different than what He said? I'm not sure I'd made a dogma out of this that states, NO, NOT people from all nations will be in Heaven, most nations will not be represented" simply because you think John's vision cannot be true.

We're presenting Scriptures - several - that STATE Jesus died for all, for everyone, etc. Put in various ways. Understood by Christians to mean exactly that (except for a handful of Anti-Calvin folks in the late 16th century and a few following them since). Some seem to believe that cannot be true and is not to be believed. But is that the basis for their new dogma, "No, Jesus did NOT die for all but ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY for some unknown few." Yeah, some will say "we know who that is AFTER THEY COME TO FAITH" - but they admit they don't know who before that - only that it's a very few - and even that, they are ASSUMING that if one doesn't have faith, Jesus didn't die for them, a bit of cirular reasoning and of course NOTHING in Scripture or history remotely states that. So yes, since Jesus never said which few He did for (he just said "all") then no one can know for sure who He died for (He never gave said).

Also, if Jesus died for all, then his blood would have had to be poured out for all. How does "poured out for many" = an atonement for all?

Please don't join Dave in his heresy of repudiating the role of faith. Sadly, that IS a heresy many anti-Calvin Calvinists have fallen into.

Or his heresy that Jesus only died for those who have earned it by their love and obedience; works-righteousness, Pelagaianism.

It's meaningless to say that he atoned for the sins of all men, yet only poured out his blood for a fraction of those men.

I don't say He poured out His blood for only a fraction of men. That's YOUR position.

The issue is not what you quote, it's your off-the-wall interpretations that contradict other scriptures.

I haven't interpreted any of the Scriptures I offered. Not any of them. I just quoted God. Word-for-word. Verbatim. Adding nothing. Subtracting nothing. No spin. No interpretation. No "I think what this means but doesn't say is...." Nope, just verbatim what He states.

But contrary, you've not quoted God stating your position. Only "interpretations" (that a Jew would offer) that suggest God MEANS the opposite of what He states.

No. For God to contradict Himself in saying "Jesus died for all" He'd need to say "Jesus did not die for all." Or at the VERY least, offer a singualr exception such as "Jesus did not die for Donald Trump." You haven't shown Him contradicting Himself. Collectively or individually.



Doran, let's pretend you are correct, and every one of those many Scriptures that verbatim states that Jesus died for all are all.... well, hyperbole at best, lies more likely. And that a Jew would never believe that so we should not. Okay. Now, how does that confirm - as dogma - that Jesus did NOT die for all but ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY for some FEW? Even if you spin EVERY verse we have to MEAN the exact opposite of what it states, you still have NOTHING to support your dogma.

Enjoy the rest of your evening

You too.



.

 

[Albion]

Also, please give just one text in scripture that essentially states that God loves sinners.

Well, that's exactly what John 3:16 says.

16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
...................................................................................................................................................................................................
And if. for some reason, you don't like that one, here's another:

"But God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us."
Romans 5:8

Give me one, please.

Consider it done.

 

[Josiah]

Well, that's exactly what John 3:16 says.

16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."


Consider it done.

@Albion


Why this need to repudiate John 3:16 by our friends????

I offered these as just a few Scriptures....

"Not that we love God but that God loved us" 1 John 4:16

"God shows His love for us in that while we were enemies, Christ died for us" Romans 5:8

"You were dead in your sins..." Ephesians 2:1

"He saved us by virtue of His mercy." Titus 3:5

"Christ died for the ungodly." Romans 5:6

And yeah, John 3:16 but I know the "L" folks really don't like that verse. It seems to upset them.

And I really wonder about their concept of grace/mercy when they insist that Jesus only died for those who first loved Him, who first were righteous and holy and sinless. Kind of means not only is Scripture wrong but perhaps that means He died for no one.


But it's not the issue here. It's VERY hard catching up with all their rabbit holes, all the red herrings. I admit I've been sucked in at times. The issue is this. WHICH DOES SCRIPTURE STATE? THAT JESUS DIED FOR ALL OR THAT HE DID NOT DIE FOR ALL BUT ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY FOR SOME FEW? I think this was settled way back on page one. Indeed, in the very first thread on this topic.




.

 

[prism]

I don't think either of those comments has anything to do with what I wrote. Perhaps you just misunderstood my point.

Perhaps not, but I was working off your comment

"and the other is so limited that it would make God save out of all mankind only a handful of people"

Which He did at the time of Noah/flood.

 

[prism]

If given:
God loves everyone and
If given salvation is a work of God (sola Gratia) and
If given, God is not willing that any should perish

Then the fact that some perish indicates God is not dealing equally with all men.
To claim faith as a work of man is a step towards Deism.

2 Timothy 2:19 KJV
Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.

 

[Albion]

Perhaps not, but I was working off your comment

"and the other is so limited that it would make God save out of all mankind only a handful of people"

Which He did at the time of Noah/flood.

Well, no. We were talking about eternal salvation, about the life to come.

The example you gave about Noah concerns his physical life on Earth only and says nothing about whether he was "saved" in the sense we had been using the word.

 

[Doran]

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 .

You should avail yourself of a dictionary and look up the world "qualitative". It can refer to quality or KIND.

 

[Doran]

Well, no. We were talking about eternal salvation, about the life to come.

The example you gave about Noah concerns his physical life on Earth only and says nothing about whether he was "saved" in the sense we had been using the word.

God saved Noah from the flood precisely because he was one of God's elect.

 

[Albion]

You should avail yourself of a dictionary and look up the world "qualitative". It can refer to quality or KIND.

? I didn't deny that.

However, that distinction wouldn't change anything with what we were discussing.

 

[Albion]

God saved Noah from the flood precisely because he was one of God's elect.

Interesting guess. Nothing in Scripture says that, however.

 

[Doran]

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....





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.

Wow! Talk about a straw man. Where have I ever said that "all" never means all in the quantitative sense? You must be getting desperate. Rom 3:23 most definitely means all in that sense. How do I know that? Because there are numerous other closely related passages that affirm that truth. Context, context, context. I make my determinations from the three-fold context of scripture. In fact, the verses immediately prior to v. 23 make that abundantly clear.

.