Jesus died for the sins of the world

[Albion]

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.

You said it in posts 876 and 878 (and not necessarily only there).

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.

 

[Doran]

? I didn't deny that.

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

Well, why did you bring up "good" people or whatever? It seems you were only thinking of quality and not kind.

 

[Albion]

Well, why did you bring up "good" people or whatever?

It was a quick example, not meant as the only possible one.

 

[Josiah]

Doran,

See posts 882, 883, 887, 890



.

 

[Josiah]

Wow! Talk about a straw man. Where have I ever said that "all" never means all

You said it ALWAYS has exceptions.

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.

You seem to be embracing Dave's heresy that faith is irrelevant in personal justification. It IS a common heresy among these radical Anti-Calvin folks who defend the "L" (and lead many radical Calvinists to become Universalists). Dave's entire apologetic is if Jesus died for all then all are personally justified (faith having nothing to do with it; there is no salvation by faith). Indeed, if we mention faith he says we're guilty of works-righteousness.

Which is of course another common heresy among these folks. They may insist that Jesus ONLY died for those who earned it and deserve it by their love for God and obedience to him.

Well, why did you bring up "good" people or whatever?

Actuallly, you did. Indicated that Jesus died ONLY for those who deserve it by their love for Him and obedience to Him.

Trying DESPERATELY to get around what so many Scriptures literally, verbatim state. "NO! That's not true! Jesus died ONLY for those who merit it! ONLY for those who will eventually come to faith and thus earn it. "ONLY for the Elect." But you can't find anything in Scripture that says that.

But yes, if the heresy of denouncing faith is true - then your point is sound: If Jesus died for all then all would have personal justification. It's just that your position is based on a heresy. And yes, if the heresy of Pelagianism is true, then your point is sound: Jesus only died for those who earned it, by their merits of love and obedience. But your point is based on a heresy.

Here's what Scripture states, and the Fathers and Councils and believers have accepted:
Jesus died for all.
Faith is given to the Elect.
BOTH are essential.
BOTH are the work and gift of God.
God is not lying (or just REALLY BADLY wording things - over and over and over again).


See posts 882, 883, 887, 890



.

 

[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." 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.”







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."




.

You argue like a broken record -- always regurgitating your favorite "all" passages, then telling us what a text doesn't say, then erecting straw men arguments, such as "us isn't a contradiction to all", and then of course foregoing any attempt at all at actually exegeting any particular passage. While I agree that "us" doesn't NECESSARILY contradict "all (the operative term here is "necessary", btw), that is for you to prove. Us could = all if the prophet was addressing his prophecy to the entire world. Or if if could be shown that the entire world was also in the same covenant relationship with YHWH that Israel was when Isaiah penned his prophecy. If you can show these things, then yes...."us" would = "all", quantitatively. But if you can't then "us" cannot possibly include every man, woman and child in the world without exception. The term "us" would have to be understood in a restrictive sense. First from the immediate context of the passage (53:8, 12), and then also from remote NT contexts such as Eph 2:12 that tells us that the Gentile nations were excluded from Israel's covenants!

It's no wonder at all you don't want to dig into the messianic prophecy since its content militates strongly against your presuppositions which are lies. There is no way under this sun that exegetically,"us" in this passage can mean all in the distributive or quantitative sense. The prophet clearly taught that the messiah bore the sins of God's covenant people, which is not the world at large.

 

[Doran]

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


Consider it done.

So, what do you think Rom 5:8 is teaching, exactly? And who is the "us" and "we" in the verse?

As far as Jn 3:16 goes, the onus is on you to prove that the "world" that Jesus didn't pray for in John 17 -- you know...the world his Father "so loved" -- is used in an unrestricted sense. You're simply ASSUMING it is.

 

[Albion]

So, what do you think Rom 5:8 is teaching, exactly? And who is the "us" and "we" in the verse?

Since you ask me personally, I am of the belief that when we read further into that same passage we find the answer.


17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

 

[Doran]

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

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

What I'd like to know is where death is talked about Jn 3:16. What bible version do you use?

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

Josiah: Logical fallacy, obviously.

Not at all. Give us an explicit text that says that God loves the ungodly, the wicked, the unrigteous, arrogant non-God fearers, etc. Conversely, I can give you plenty of scriptures that teach that God abhors, hates, despises or loathes such people.

Do you want to play?

I have already shown from Romans 3 that Paul's indictment of all unregenerate people in the world includes those who do not fear God. In other words, not fearing the Lord is a natural, common characteristic of all unregenerate people's sin nature. Conversely, I see no such indictment for pious, God-fearers.

Also one other thing: What would God's point be in Psalm 103 by telling his covenant people that he loves those who fear him IF he also loves those who don't just as much? What's the point to the revelation? What advantage or benefit or comfort does the God-fearer have over the unregenerate of this world who do not fear God, since this latter group can derive as just much comfort and assurance from God's love as the former?

 

[Doran]

Since you ask me personally, I am of the belief that when we read further into that same passage we find the answer.


17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

Two things: You did not answer the question I posed about the personal pronouns "we" and "us".

Secondly, you conveniently omit v. 19 which qualifies the "all" in the previous verse.

Wanna try again? I'll give you a little leg's up on the first issue: To whom did Paul address his epistle?

 

[Doran]

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

Josiah: 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.

That's simple: Christ died for all those whom the Father placed IN his Son by divine fiat before the foundation of the world. The profound paradox here is that God indeed does love sinners -- sinners whom the Father predestined to be in Christ. (This truth QUALIFiES God's love!) Therefore, he has loved them eternally (in spite of their wickedness) on the basis of Christ's righteousness and perfect obedience. Of course, those who have been predestined in Christ in eternity will in space and time come to a saving knowledge of Christ. Jesus' accomplished work of atonement in space and time will be applied by the Holy spirit also in space and time. I previously provided a solid proof text for you in Rom 8:39. God's love for sinners is "in Christ Jesus our Lord." God loves no sinner OUTSIDE of Christ. So, we can say, without contradiction, that God loves sinners and doesn't love sinners. Wrap you mind around that profound paradox.

Also, since the natural disposition of the unregenerate heart is to hate God; therefore, no one loves God first. God loves his elect in eternity -- before he created the world (1Jn 4:10, 19). Just like God loved only one twin Jacob in eternity (Rom 9:13)

 

[Doran]

You said it in posts 876 and 878 (and not necessarily only there).

Either you don't read too swell or you're deliberately misrepresenting what is said: This is precisely what I said in 876:

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.

So what part of "can often be" don't you get? You do yourself no favor by such misrepresentations. In fact, you lose credibility because it betrays your lack of self-confidence in your position.

 

[Doran]

Either you don't read too swell or you're deliberately misrepresenting what is said: This is precisely what I said in 876:

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.

So what part of "can often be" don't you get?

You said it ALWAYS has exceptions.





You seem to be embracing Dave's heresy that faith is irrelevant in personal justification. It IS a common heresy among these radical Anti-Calvin folks who defend the "L" (and lead many radical Calvinists to become Universalists). Dave's entire apologetic is if Jesus died for all then all are personally justified (faith having nothing to do with it; there is no salvation by faith). Indeed, if we mention faith he says we're guilty of works-righteousness.

Which is of course another common heresy among these folks. They may insist that Jesus ONLY died for those who earned it and deserve it by their love for God and obedience to him.





Actuallly, you did. Indicated that Jesus died ONLY for those who deserve it by their love for Him and obedience to Him.

Trying DESPERATELY to get around what so many Scriptures literally, verbatim state. "NO! That's not true! Jesus died ONLY for those who merit it! ONLY for those who will eventually come to faith and thus earn it. "ONLY for the Elect." But you can't find anything in Scripture that says that.

But yes, if the heresy of denouncing faith is true - then your point is sound: If Jesus died for all then all would have personal justification. It's just that your position is based on a heresy. And yes, if the heresy of Pelagianism is true, then your point is sound: Jesus only died for those who earned it, by their merits of love and obedience. But your point is based on a heresy.

Here's what Scripture states, and the Fathers and Councils and believers have accepted:
Jesus died for all.
Faith is given to the Elect.
BOTH are essential.
BOTH are the work and gift of God.
God is not lying (or just REALLY BADLY wording things - over and over and over again).


See posts 882, 883, 887, 890



.

 

[Albion]

Two things: You did not answer the question I posed about the personal pronouns "we" and "us".

Secondly, you conveniently omit v. 19 which qualifies the "all" in the previous verse.

Well, here's 19, and I don't think it changes anything.

19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

Either you don't read too swell or you're deliberately misrepresenting what is said: This is precisely what I said in 876:

Or it was an honest mistake.

After all of this, you have a theory and nothing more. The Bible, however, offers us NUMEROUS proof texts that support, point-blank, what Josiah and I have tried to explain to you.

 

[Doran]

By the way, guys, just for the record -- so that some of you can quit misrepresenting my posts: I fully realize that every sinner is saved by grace through faith -- and even the faith is a gracious gift given to his elect. (See Eph 2:8-10; Phil 1:29).

Also, I never said that anyone deserves salvation. Just because God loves only those who love him and obey him and fear him, who are righteous, merciful, etc. does not mean they deserve God's salvation. Such people are what they are ONLY by God's grace. Natural man, in and of himself, is totally depraved!

P.S. The last statement should be interpreted quantitatively. ALL our faculties that reside in the human heart are corrupt with sin; however that does not mean that each every faculty itself, in turn, is totally corrupt, i.e. in the qualitative sense. None of us are as evil as we could be.

So, please, you UAB's print this post out or something and quit misrepresenting what I believe. And you might also want to reign in your overworked imaginations when trying to figure implications to what I write.

 

[Doran]

Well, here's 19, and I don't think it changes anything.

19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

Of course, you wouldn't. See my 874.

 

[Doran]

Hey, you UABs, I'm hearing the crickets chirp re my post 886. Surely, I have not stumped the dynamic duo of Josiah and Albion, have I?

 

[Josiah]

@Doran

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

The context is Jesus' death on the Cross. You said Jesus CAN ONLY love those who first love and obey Him. This, of course, is a heresy (Pelagainism, etc.) but I quoted several Scriptures but I realize, you likely think all these cannot be true.

Here are just a few...

"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

But you never quoted Scripture stating that He did not die for all because not all first loved and obeyed him. Quote the verse where God states, " I am incapable of dying for anyone who does not FIRST love and obey me." Just quote the verse. And "I can ONLY love those who first love and obey me." Without the "only" your entire position is completely missing.

God cannot possibly love each and every person in the world (all people)

This seems to be the basis of TULIP apologetics, telling God what He states that CANNOT POSSIBLY be true, what he CANNOT possibly do. So when He says He does that, well.... he CANNOT POSSIBILY be telling the truth.. He's gotta be corrected. A lot of ego. A profound disrespect for God. A heavy does of Pelagianism.

I think it makes more sense to believe God and not constantly tell God, "you CANNOT POSSIBLY do that."

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

What would God's point be in Psalm 103 by telling his covenant people that he loves those who fear him IF he also loves those who don't just as much?

But surely your eyes notice that the word "ONLY" is absent; thus your entire position is completely, entirely missing from this verse.

And I reject your works-rigthousness, your denial of justification by grace. I reject that Jesus ONLY died for those who first loved and obeyed HIm. Scripture never states that (it states the opposite). Since you claim God CANNOT die for those who FIRST show some merit - by loving Him and obeying Him - sorry, but that is the heresy of Pelagianism and it is a repudiation of "total depravity.' In your position, the dead, unregenerate, atheistic, enemy of God FIRST must love God and obey him (put forth works that mean God rewards them) or God "CANNOT love Him". And remember, I never said God MUST love someone to die for them (we'd need to get into the various kinds of love), I simply verbatim placed several verses into my post - no interpretation, no spin, no "God CANNOT do this", no "NOT" or "ONLY" added the text to suggest it means the opposite of what He stated because you insight God CANNOT do as He verbatim states.

That's simple: Christ died for all those whom the Father placed IN his Son by divine fiat before the foundation of the world.

Strange invention. But of course we both know the Bible never states that. Everyone knows that. So, God seems to always be wrong in His verbatim words about His dying..... and He NEVER gets it right, never stating your position.


God never states that Jesus CANNOT love those who don't first love and obey him.

God never states, "Jesus died ONLY for the Elect."

God never states, "If Jesus died for you then you have personal justification (faith being a useless joke).

God never states, "Jesus ONLY died for those who first loved and obeyed Him."

You reject what God DOES state ("God cannot") but state a lot of things He never stated.

Your whole apologetic rests on NOT ONE Scripture but a denial of many ("Cannot be true what God said there").



Now, we've presented our Scriptures. You claim they "cannot" be true... you claim we need to add "NOT" and "ONLY" in several places to negate what they state. A poster here commented that there is far better textual support that JEsus died for all than there is for the divinity of Jesus - and he has a point. BUT what you do have? Where are all the verses that state Jesus did NOT die for all but ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY for some unknown few? Since you insist God is SO wrong in all these many, many verses on this topic, did God EVER get it right and state your position, "No, Jesus did not die for all but ONLY for a few?"

The prophet clearly taught that the messiah bore the sins of God's covenant people, which is not the world at large.

Where does he state, "NOT for God's non-covenant people." Just quote the verse.

Yes, obviously, of course, He died for His covenant people but here again, the totality of your position is completely missing, there is no "ONLY." Your position is completely missing here.






.

 

[Doran]

Hey, Josiah and Albion, what parts of Psalm 103 don't you get? By the way, when the psalmist said that God loves those who fear them -- he's talking about people existing in space and time whose life is characterized by such a godly disposition The passage says NOTHING about HOW those people came by their God-fearing disposition of heart! So, once again you're reasoning is fallacious. Your accusations against me are false. God loves NO ONE on the basis of their own merits but on the basis of the merits of Christ. When a person lives such a godly life, we can be sure that it is God's grace that empowers him to do that. In other word's GOD GETS ALL THE GLORY. (Yeah, "all" in the quantitative sense!)

So, tell me gents, what part Rom 8:39 don't you get:

Rom 8:39
39 neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
NIV

This makes perfectly good theological sense since God cannot love evil! So, with your unlimited atonement heresy, you guys are definitely implying that God loves evil! That he loves wickedness. After all, didn't Jesus teach that the human heart is the fount of evil!? See Mat 5:18-20; Gen 6:5; Prov 22:15 / 24:9; Jer 17:9. So how can God love a person whose heart is desperately wicked and deceitful above all else? Isn't God more concerned with matters of the heart above all else!? After all, isn't the promise of a new heart at the very core of the New Covenant promise God made to his covenant people through Jeremiah in chapter 31? If God was so enamored with the old, natural heart of unregenerate mankind, why promise a new one? You are so invested in your heresy that you're oblivious to the fact that you actually blaspheme God with your heresy. You want to dichotomize evil acts from the SOURCE of the evil that resulted in those acts, i.e. the human heart. You seem to think that evil is just this mysterious thing that floats around the ether or some such thing. But in actuality EVIL isn't a thing! Evil is actually the absence of something, i.e. Good. Evil is to Good as to what Darkness is to Light. There can be no darkness until there is no light! Now, etch this passage firmly into your minds:

Mark 10:18
18 "Why do you call me good ?" Jesus answered. "No one is good — except God alone.
NIV

So when you say that God loves "all" in the quantitative sense, you are actually saying God loves evil. Jesus is actually implying, unequivocally, that ALL [mortal] men (quantitatively) are evil! Since no one is good, then all must be evil! Elementary logic, Dr. Watsons.

The Romans passage above harmonizes with these teachings, since Paul taught that God's love for the saints to whom he was writing is bound up only "in Christ Jesus our Lord". In other words God's love for his elect saints is grounded solely on the merits of his Son Jesus Christ. Because God imputes Christ's righteousness to his elect, he CAN love them! His saints ARE good, thanks to Christ's imputed righteousness! Also, because God in eternity has predestined MANY for salvation, he has identified his elect with his righteous Son. Therefore, He loved his elect before the foundation of the world.

Additionally, there are numerous passages that teach that God hates, loathes, despises or abhors evil PERSONS. So, your heresy that God loves "all" quantitatively contradicts numerous scriptures. So, why don't you guys get busy and reconcile those 20 or so OT passages with your naive God "loves all" in the distributive sense nonsense? Would you, gents, want me to provide you with a list of references to make your job a little easier?

I also challenged you guys to produce but one explicit passage that teaches that God loves sinners. I'm waiting. More crickets. You guys can't even come up with one explicit passage? That's pathetic. God doesn't even hear the prayers of the wicked...yet, we're supposed to believe that he loves them nonetheless? Seriously? God won't do the smaller thing in terms of hearing prayers, yet he does the much larger in loving those he won't even hear? In what universe does this make any sense?

 

[Albion]

That's simple: Christ died for all those whom the Father placed IN his Son by divine fiat before the foundation of the world.

That's the theory, all right. It's not the proof--or anything even close to it--that was requested.

The profound paradox here is that God indeed does love sinners -- sinners whom the Father predestined to be in Christ. (This truth QUALIFiES God's love!) Therefore, he has loved them eternally (in spite of their wickedness) on the basis of Christ's righteousness and perfect obedience. Of course, those who have been predestined in Christ in eternity will in space and time come to a saving knowledge of Christ. Jesus' accomplished work of atonement in space and time will be applied by the Holy spirit also in space and time. I previously provided a solid proof text for you in Rom 8:39. God's love for sinners is "in Christ Jesus our Lord." God loves no sinner OUTSIDE of Christ. So, we can say, without contradiction, that God loves sinners and doesn't love sinners. Wrap you mind around that profound paradox.

THIS, you imagine to be some sort of substantiation for your belief???????

And as for Romans 8:39, it reads as follows:

" Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."

There is absolutely no reference to any Elect in that verse. It is testifying to the love of God which is revealed through Christ Jesus. Who can disagree with the proposition that God's love is made manifest thanks to the presence and the work of Jesus?

But you might choose at this point to reiterate the following: "This makes perfectly good theological sense since God cannot love evil! "

The mistake there is that God is not loving evil. That is your own hypothesis. He is loving his creation, mankind, even though it is sinful. That's why the Son of God came into our world as one of us! Because of divine love. If it were instead as you suggest, God could not have been Incarnated as Jesus of Nazareth...but we all know that he WAS!

God was willing to make it possible for all sinners to be reconciled rather than just die in sin, eternally separated from the Almighty! That's the main theme of everything Christmas, for goodness' sake!