A Catholic perspective on Limited Atonement and Universal Atonement arguments.

[1689Dave]

Not to put too fine a point on it, your statements are close to gibberish.

Jesus is "the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world". What part of that statement is beyond your comprehension?

Have a Jew explain it to you. Not a 21st-century Americanised "Christian".

 

[MoreCoffee]

Have a Jew explain it to you. Not a 21st-century Americanised "Christian".

Judaism is not the source of wisdom for Christians now. You look in the wrong place for it. Perhaps that is why you lack it.

 

[1689Dave]

Judaism is not the source of wisdom for Christians now. You look in the wrong place for it. Perhaps that is why you lack it.

But unless you understand Christ as his first-century audience did, you remain blind to his message.

 

[MoreCoffee]

But unless you understand Christ as his first-century audience did, you remain blind to his message.

Many of the first century audience rejected Jesus. Your teaching is rejection of the Lord. You embrace the supremacy of intellect, your own.

 

[1689Dave]

Many of the first century audience rejected Jesus. Your teaching is rejection of the Lord. You embrace the supremacy of intellect, your own.

But many did not. What about the disciples?

 

[MoreCoffee]

But many did not. What about the disciples?

You are not one of the disciples. You were not there.

 

[1689Dave]

You are not one of the disciples. You were not there.

The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch. Do you practice the Sermon on the Mount as they did? I do.

 

[MoreCoffee]

The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch. Do you practice the Sermon on the Mount as they did? I do.

In your own imagination you do. That is evident.

 

[1689Dave]

In your own imagination you do. That is evident.

Insults mean you are now defenseless.

 

[Josiah]

Universal atonement supposedly only saves those who save themselves by works, or else all would be saved.

@1689Dave


Your fundamental apologetic that if Jesus died for all then all would be saved ONLY PROVES YOUR HERESY, your repudiation of faith. You whole position rests on this heresy that faith is irrelevant to personal justification, that the only thing that matters in personal justification is whether Christ died for you or not. It's a heresy. Your entire position is based on this heresy.



AGAIN, here are the two views:

1. Jesus died for all people.

+ This is the historic, orthodox, Christian view.
+ This is LITERALLY, VERBATIM, Word for word, what God STATES. Repeatedly. Directly.

This does NOT teach that anyone saves themselves.
This does NOT teach that faith comes from self.
This does NOT teach that we are saved by our works.
It teaches this: JESUS DIED FOR ALL PEOPLE.
JESUS...
DIED...
FOR...
ALL...
PEOPLE....
That's it. That's all. That's the position. Those 5 words. Can you read up to 5 words?


2. Jesus did NOT die for all but rather ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY for some few.

+ This is the terrible invention of a tiny number of Anti-Calvin folks to counter some equally absurd, silly Arminianists.
+ It is NOWHERE stated in Scripture or in history.




Now, it would be helpful IF you could actually address the issue, but you've proven you cannot. All you are able to do is regurgitate the absurd (and occasionally heretical) extremist arguments of those Anti-Calvin guys against the equally absurd extremist views of Arminianists. Worthless since there are no Arminianists here. And two absurd, extremist, unbiblical, heretical ideas don't cancel each other put, we are just left with two absurd wrong views.


So......

All we get is:
+ Proof you have not one Scripture that states your horrible invention.
+ Diversions, evasions, "the shall game"
+ Questions (which are submissive in debate) based on heresy
+ Proof you have have nothing to submit to monergists.

.

 

[MoreCoffee]

The video is amusing and very Protestant.

 

[1689Dave]

@1689Dave


Your fundamental apologetic that if Jesus died for all then all would be saved ONLY PROVES YOUR HERESY, your repudiation of faith. You whole position rests on this heresy that faith is irrelevant to personal justification, that the only thing that matters in personal justification is whether Christ died for you or not. It's a heresy. Your entire position is based on this heresy.



AGAIN, here are the two views:

1. Jesus died for all people.

+ This is the historic, orthodox, Christian view.
+ This is LITERALLY, VERBATIM, Word for word, what God STATES. Repeatedly. Directly.

This does NOT teach that anyone saves themselves.
This does NOT teach that faith comes from self.
This does NOT teach that we are saved by our works.
It teaches this: JESUS DIED FOR ALL PEOPLE.
JESUS...
DIED...
FOR...
ALL...
PEOPLE....
That's it. That's all. That's the position. Those 5 words. Can you read up to 5 words?


2. Jesus did NOT die for all but rather ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY for some few.

+ This is the terrible invention of a tiny number of Anti-Calvin folks to counter some equally absurd, silly Arminianists.
+ It is NOWHERE stated in Scripture or in history.




Now, it would be helpful IF you could actually address the issue, but you've proven you cannot. All you are able to do is regurgitate the absurd (and occasionally heretical) extremist arguments of those Anti-Calvin guys against the equally absurd extremist views of Arminianists. Worthless since there are no Arminianists here. And two absurd, extremist, unbiblical, heretical ideas don't cancel each other put, we are just left with two absurd wrong views.


So......

All we get is:
+ Proof you have not one Scripture that states your horrible invention.
+ Diversions, evasions, "the shall game"
+ Questions (which are submissive in debate) based on heresy
+ Proof you have have nothing to submit to monergists.

.

What I'm proving is that you teach Pelagianism. It says Christ died for nobody. You end up in the same place. Why? if Christ died for all as you say, all would be saved because of the nature of the atonement. He paid for all the sins of all he died for. In this case the elect.

 

[Josiah]

What I'm proving is that you teach Pelagianism.

Good luck.

What you actually are doing is trying to divert the discussion away from your horrible invention: That Jesus did NOT die for all (as God so often stated) but rather for ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY for some FEW.

if Christ died for all as you say, all would be saved

That's all you've got. Your heresy of repudiating faith. Your whole terrible invention flows from this heresy that faith has no role in personal justification.

He paid for all the sins of all he died for. In this case the elect.

Yet, as you have proven, Scripture never remotely states that Jesus died ONLY for the elect. It says He died for all people (and yes, that includes the elect).



AGAIN, here are the two views:

1. Jesus died for all people.

+ This is the historic, orthodox, Christian view.
+ This is LITERALLY, VERBATIM, Word for word, what God STATES. Repeatedly. Directly.

This does NOT teach that anyone saves themselves.
This does NOT teach that faith comes from self.
This does NOT teach that we are saved by our works.
This does NOT teach that original sin is wrong.
It teaches this: JESUS DIED FOR ALL PEOPLE.
JESUS...
DIED...
FOR...
ALL...
PEOPLE....
That's it. That's all. That's the position. Those 5 words.
Can you read up to 5 words?
THOSE 5 words? Not invisible words but the actual words?
I've come to seriously doubt it.


2. Jesus did NOT die for all but rather ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY for some few.

+ This is the terrible invention of a tiny number of Anti-Calvin folks to counter some equally absurd, silly Arminianists.
+ It is NOWHERE stated in Scripture or in history, as you yourself have repeatedly proven.


Now, it would be helpful IF you could actually address the issue, but you've proven you cannot. All you are able to do is regurgitate the absurd (and occasionally heretical) extremist arguments of those Anti-Calvin guys against the equally absurd extremist views of Arminianists. Worthless since there are no Arminianists here. And two absurd, extremist, unbiblical, heretical ideas don't cancel each other put, we are just left with two absurd wrong views.


And @MoreCoffee, in spite of your seeming desire to disagree with every Protestant on everything simply because they are Protestant, view #1 IS the official and historic position of the Catholic Church.





.

 

[1689Dave]

Good luck.

What you actually are doing is trying to divert the discussion away from your horrible invention: That Jesus did NOT die for all (as God so often stated) but rather for ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY for some FEW.




That's all you've got. Your heresy of repudiating faith. Your whole terrible invention flows from this heresy that faith has no role in personal justification.






Yet, as you have proven, Scripture never remotely states that Jesus died ONLY for the elect. It says He died for all people (and yes, that includes the elect).


AGAIN, here are the two views:

1. Jesus died for all people.

+ This is the historic, orthodox, Christian view.
+ This is LITERALLY, VERBATIM, Word for word, what God STATES. Repeatedly. Directly.

This does NOT teach that anyone saves themselves.
This does NOT teach that faith comes from self.
This does NOT teach that we are saved by our works.
This does NOT teach that original sin is wrong.
It teaches this: JESUS DIED FOR ALL PEOPLE.
JESUS...
DIED...
FOR...
ALL...
PEOPLE....
That's it. That's all. That's the position. Those 5 words. Can you read up to 5 words?


2. Jesus did NOT die for all but rather ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY for some few.

+ This is the terrible invention of a tiny number of Anti-Calvin folks to counter some equally absurd, silly Arminianists.
+ It is NOWHERE stated in Scripture or in history, as you yourself have repeatedly proven.


Now, it would be helpful IF you could actually address the issue, but you've proven you cannot. All you are able to do is regurgitate the absurd (and occasionally heretical) extremist arguments of those Anti-Calvin guys against the equally absurd extremist views of Arminianists. Worthless since there are no Arminianists here. And two absurd, extremist, unbiblical, heretical ideas don't cancel each other put, we are just left with two absurd wrong views.




.

Not luck, it is fact.

 

[Albion]

Not luck, it is fact.

Do you practice the Sermon on the Mount as they did? I do.

Where in Jesus's Sermon on the Mount did he recommend to his audience that the Godly way to live and behave towards others includes never admitting that you could possibly be wrong?

 

[1689Dave]

Where in Jesus's Sermon on the Mount did he recommend to his audience that the Godly way to live and behave towards others includes never admitting that you could possibly be wrong?

Is scripture ever wrong? Then how can anyone who finds harmony with a multitude of believers be wrong? Stick to the Creeds to find out what it's like.

 

[1689Dave]

Good luck.

What you actually are doing is trying to divert the discussion away from your horrible invention: That Jesus did NOT die for all (as God so often stated) but rather for ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY for some FEW.






That's all you've got. Your heresy of repudiating faith. Your whole terrible invention flows from this heresy that faith has no role in personal justification.






Yet, as you have proven, Scripture never remotely states that Jesus died ONLY for the elect. It says He died for all people (and yes, that includes the elect).



AGAIN, here are the two views:

1. Jesus died for all people.

+ This is the historic, orthodox, Christian view.
+ This is LITERALLY, VERBATIM, Word for word, what God STATES. Repeatedly. Directly.

This does NOT teach that anyone saves themselves.
This does NOT teach that faith comes from self.
This does NOT teach that we are saved by our works.
This does NOT teach that original sin is wrong.
It teaches this: JESUS DIED FOR ALL PEOPLE.
JESUS...
DIED...
FOR...
ALL...
PEOPLE....
That's it. That's all. That's the position. Those 5 words.
Can you read up to 5 words?
THOSE 5 words? Not invisible words but the actual words?
I've come to seriously doubt it.


2. Jesus did NOT die for all but rather ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY for some few.

+ This is the terrible invention of a tiny number of Anti-Calvin folks to counter some equally absurd, silly Arminianists.
+ It is NOWHERE stated in Scripture or in history, as you yourself have repeatedly proven.


Now, it would be helpful IF you could actually address the issue, but you've proven you cannot. All you are able to do is regurgitate the absurd (and occasionally heretical) extremist arguments of those Anti-Calvin guys against the equally absurd extremist views of Arminianists. Worthless since there are no Arminianists here. And two absurd, extremist, unbiblical, heretical ideas don't cancel each other put, we are just left with two absurd wrong views.


And @MoreCoffee, in spite of your seeming desire to disagree with every Protestant on everything simply because they are Protestant, view #1 IS the official and historic position of the Catholic Church.





.

Let's say Jesus paid for the sins of the saved. Agree? So he didn't pay for the sins of the vast multitudes whose sins remain unpaid for on judgment day.

 

[Josiah]

Let's say Jesus paid for the sins of the saved. Agree?

Since "saved" are among "all" yes.

So he didn't pay for the sins of the vast multitudes whose sins remain unpaid for on judgment day.

Absurd. Silly. An obvious logical fallacy even my four-year-old wouldn't buy.





.

 

[Albion]

Is scripture ever wrong? Then how can anyone who finds harmony with a multitude of believers be wrong?

But you don't.

You pride yourself on following the Sermon on the Mount, but nothing in it entreated Jesus' listeners to boast of their religious wisdom and sneer at anybody who doesn't return the compliment.

On the contrary, it is rudimentary that Jesus was recommending compassion and a quiet, unassuming approach to loving and respecting one's neighbor. Meekness is applauded, and turning the other cheek, not seeking an eye for an eye, etc.

That's what makes the Sermon on the Mount so famous...and you seem to have it backwards.

 

[1689Dave]

But you don't.

You pride yourself on following the Sermon on the Mount, but nothing in it entreated Jesus' listeners to boast of their religious wisdom and sneer at anybody who doesn't return the compliment.

On the contrary, it is rudimentary that Jesus was recommending compassion and a quiet, unassuming approach to loving and respecting one's neighbor. Meekness is applauded, and turning the other cheek, not seeking an eye for an eye, etc.

That's what makes the Sermon on the Mount so famous...and you seem to have it backwards.

Do you follow the Sermon? John says those who don't are not saved. Do you allow the 7 Ecumenical Councils and allow the Ecumenical creeds to correct you?