Jesus died for the sins of the world

[Josiah]

Well, that's because the question we're discussing is the EXTENT of the Atonement.

@Doran

The immediate question at hand is: For whom did Christ die?

When you find the verse that states that Jesus did not die for all but rather ONLY FOR SOME FEW, then quote it.




.

 

[Doran]

I am elect, I am a member of the body of Christ; this is know from objective visible evidence.

You know by what means?

Again, read 1 John. Note very carefully how many time John uses the word "know" in that epistle. If anyone claims to be a Christian and his life is essentially and substantially aligned with what John wrote, then he can KNOW God has done a work in his life. But if not, and his life is characterized by ungodliness, indifference toward other believers, etc. then he has every reason to question his salvation.

 

[Doran]

@Doran

When you find the verse that states that Jesus did not die for all but rather ONLY FOR SOME FEW, then quote it.




.

I found many that limit the extent of his death. You need to pay attention. Many doesn't = each and every person. See my 948. I also provided several passages that speak to a PARTICULAR atonement, i.e. that Christ died for a particular people, such as his elect, his sheep, his friends, etc. See also Act 20:28, 1Cor 6:20; 7:23; Eph 5:2, 25, Gal 3:13-14, Tit 2:14; 1Jn 3:16. So...the ball is in your court. You need to come up with a one passage -- just one -- ONE -- that says Christ died for each and every person in the world. Or even a passage that says he died for sinners, or the wicked or for evildoers, etc.

Good luck with your Mission Impossible.

P.S. I almost forgot. I almost never do videos. So, you're wasting your time posting them. My time is as limited as Christ's atonement was. So if you can distill a vid down to a few of your own words, I'll read that.

 

[Doran]

You are not, that's true. And I pointed out why you will not discuss it.

That's because taking up the matter of a belief and trust in Christ as Lord would fatally undermine your theory that Christ died for only a few souls who were guaranteed salvation irrespective of how they chose to live their lives, either in accord with Christ's teachings or completely unmoved by them.

Humor me. Elaborate on how faith would undermine the Doctrines of Grace, generally, or the Atonement more specifically. Also, what part of my 915 didn't you get?

 

[Albion]

Humor me. Elaborate on how faith would undermine the Doctrines of Grace, generally, or the Atonement more specifically.

Where did you come up with the notion that Faith in Christ as one's Lord and Savior will "undermine" the Atonement!?

 

[Josiah]

Many doesn't = each and every person.

@Doran


1. It also doesn't = few. And that IS the position of the "L" invention you are defending. That Christ did NOT die for all (as the Bible so often, literally, verbatim states; and as Christianity has embraced for 2000 years) BUT RATHER only for some few. How "many?" Well, the MOST that can possibly be claimed is the believers, those who were baptized as babies or who at least claim SO connection to Chrisitianity (if only cultural). How "many" would that be? Well, as Calvinists point out, that would have been less than 1% in the First Century. It's about 20% right now. For most of the 2000 year history, it's probably been under 10%. But those highest possible estimates are based on one having ANY connection to Christianity - infant baptism, counted as Christian by some government, listed on registries of some parish, people claiming some cultural or historic connection to Christianity. It's probably far, far less if we actually have some more reliable evidence of faith.


2. Since no Anti-Calvin theorist has a single Scripture that states their new invention, they are forced to reference Scriptures that do not state their horrible invention. Matthew 20:28 is their favorite. But of course, as everyone knows, it does not state that Jesus did not die for all but rather only for some few. It does say "many". The Greek word "polloi" does not exactly mean "all" but it is the antonym for "few" and thus contradicts the horrible view of Limited Atonement. And this Greek word almost always is used to show inclusiveness (not the exclusiveness these radical Anti-Calvin folks wish it did). In the LXX, it is the word used for the Hebrew "rabbim" which is THE most inclusive word in the Hebrew language.


3. Even if you could prove that the Bible is SO wrong in all those many Scriptures that specifically verbatim state that Jesus died for all, that still does NOTHING to support your view. You have no "ONLY" (as you've proven) so you cannot find any Scripture that states ONLY this subgroup of all is actually meant (God just never got it right in Scripture). IF you proved Jesus did not die for all, that could mean He died for no one, that He died ONLY for people then but not people how, that He died ONLY for Catholics but not Protestants, that He died ONLY for boys but not girls, etc. You are theorizing the "FEW" of your theory but you have NOT ONE SCRIPTURE that states that. NOTHING in Scripture, NOTHING in history, just a wild new theory of one man who lived in the 15th Century and radicals who embraced his veiw to counter an equally invalid, new, unbiblical view of Arminianists.

I also provided several passages that speak to a PARTICULAR atonement, i.e. that Christ died for a particular people, such as his elect, his sheep, his friends, etc.

Never debated.

And in so doing, you have proven that your entire new horrible invention is completely MISSING in Scripture. NONE of your Scriptures state the essential word (the whole point) of your invention, the word "ONLY." And of course, you are just using circular reasoning to assume that those with faith (the Elect, sheep, friends) are thus the only ones for whom He died. Pure circular reasoning.

If I wrote that my wife gave birth to our four-year-old, that is not proof that she ONLY gave birth to our four-year-old and thus not to our one-year-old. If I wrote that Ford makes Mustangs, that does NOT prove it therefore ONLY makes Mustangs and all other products with "FORD" on them cannot be made by Ford.

So...the ball is in your court. You need to come up with a one passage -- just one -- ONE -- that says Christ died for sinners

Why limit me to just one?

Sure, just a few off the top of my head....'

Romans 3:23, "For all have sinned."

Romans 3:10, "No one is righteous, no, not even one."

1 Corinthians 15:3, "For I delivered to you as the matter of highest importance, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with Scriptures."

1 Timothy 1:15, "This saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners."

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

Romans 3:23-24, "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God and are justified by his grace as a gift through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus."

Just a few.... I'm sure there are many more and perhaps better ones, these are just off the top of my head.


So... the ball is in your court.
You need to come up with one passage - just one - that states...
"Christ did not die for sinners."
"Christ did not die for all people but ONLY for some few of them."





.

 

[Doran]

Doran



Let me begin by saying, this is an excellent post, I agree with it except for one point. I believe Adam and Eves seed are the same, In other words Adam is part of the Godly Seed because he and eve are one. Lets read Mal 2:15


And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.

When God Created them Both, He named them both Adam Gen 5:1-2

This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

Now if we read the sacred genealogy of Christ according to the flesh, Its traced back to Adam Lk 3:23-38



But the contrast is not with Adams seed, but with satans or the serpents seed Gen 3:14-15

14 And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

So God has designated some of mankind as the serpents seed, like cain for instance. Though cain was their firstborn, Adam and Eve Gen 4:1-2

And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord.

2 And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.

Nevertheless Eve later disclaimed him as being of her seed, but claimed Seth who had replaced Abel, notice Gen 4:25

25 And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.

The godly line of election was through abel first, then replaced with seth, cain isnt in the picture. Look at the Lk 3 Genealogy again, cain isnt mentioned but Seth is.

Cain, even though he was a physical descendant of Adam and Eve, nevertheless God designated him a child of the devil, outside of the godly line of election 1 Jn 3:12

12 Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous.

Jesus mentioned this in a parable Matt 13:36-39

36 Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field.

37 He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man;

38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;

39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.

So again, I agreed with everything you said in that post, except what was said about Adam, and told you why !

Glad you enjoyed my post. I actually post more for the benefit of like-minded lurkers or participants with the hopes of exposing them to different avenues of thought.

Re whose seed Adam was would take us off-topic -- that would really be a rabbit trail, especially since the subject is not an essential of the Faith. Several years ago, I did a deep dive study of the Fall and came up with, as I recall, at least a 10-point argument as to why Adam was very likely the seed of the Serpent, whereas Eve, conversely, was the Seed of Christ. If this subject interests you, PM me with your email addy and I'll dig out that study and send it to you. I will share, though, the two primary reasons for reaching the conclusion I have.

1. Gen 3:15 runs totally counter to the ANE (ancient near east) culture and tradition in terms of how the ancient world thought about their offspring. Being the thoroughly patriarchal world it was, when the ancients talked of "seed" they would invariably think in terms of the seed of the man. They understood that the man's sperm was what "seeded" a woman's uterus. They learned pretty quickly, that it took man's "seeding" of the woman to produce offspring. Therefore, this passage goes totally against the grain of ANE world. God purposely, omitted Adam as being the "seeder" and instead talks about the woman's seed, which alludes to a supernatural birth. Someone other than Adam was going to "seed" the woman's womb. Also, Adam is conspicuously missing in this verse in terms of God's decreed enmity -- an enmity that was limited between Eve and the Serpent and Eve's seed. Eve was without doubt implicitly reconciled to God, but Adam?

2. There's nothing ever positive said about Adam in all scripture. If Adam was saved and he was actually a believer, we don't have a scintilla of proof of this. If Adam was a man of faith of the godly seed, why isn't he, as the federal head of the human race, the [spiritual] father of all the Jews and Gentiles, instead of Abraham? If Adam was a true believer, why is he contrasted with Christ three times in the NT -- once in Romans 5 and twice in 1Corinthians 15? Adam has this very unique and dubious distinction. In fact, if Adam was a believer all these contrasts with Christ are unprecedented in scriptures; for no other believer is only contrasted with Christ. And I'm very reluctant to accept something that is true when it's unprecedented, for I'm guided by a principle of justice stated in both the OT and NT that basically says that every fact should have 2 to 3 witnesses (Deut 17:6; 19:15, etc.). And this principle of law, makes for an excellent hermeneutical principle, as well. But to the best of my knowledge, there is no person of faith in scripture that is only contrasted with Christ. Yes, Jesus sharply rebuked Peter once and called him "Satan" but that was just a one-time incident. But I don't anyone in their right mind would doubt that Peter wasn't a devout, pious man of faith who loved Jesus deeply.

Anyhow...the offer is open to you if want to dive into this topic as well

 

[Doran]

@Doran

1. It also doesn't = few. And that IS the position of the "L" invention you are defending. That Christ did NOT die for all (as the Bible so often, literally, verbatim states; and as Christianity has embraced for 2000 years) BUT RATHER only for some few. How "many?" Well, the MOST that can possibly be claimed is the believers, those who were baptized as babies or who at least claim SO connection to Chrisitianity (if only cultural). How "many" would that be? Well, as Calvinists point out, that would have been less than 1% in the First Century. It's about 20% right now. For most of the 2000 year history, it's probably been under 10%. But those highest possible estimates are based on one having ANY connection to Christianity - infant baptism, counted as Christian by some government, listed on registries of some parish, people claiming some cultural or historic connection to Christianity. It's probably far, far less if we actually have some more reliable evidence of faith.


2. Since no Anti-Calvin theorist has a single Scripture that states their new invention, they are forced to reference Scriptures that do not state their horrible invention. Matthew 20:28 is their favorite. But of course, as everyone knows, it does not state that Jesus did not die for all but rather only for some few. It does say "many". The Greek word "polloi" does not exactly mean "all" but it is the antonym for "few" and thus contradicts the horrible view of Limited Atonement. And this Greek word almost always is used to show inclusiveness (not the exclusiveness these radical Anti-Calvin folks wish it did). In the LXX, it is the word used for the Hebrew "rabbim" which is THE most inclusive word in the Hebrew language.


3. Even if you could prove that the Bible is SO wrong in all those many Scriptures that specifically verbatim state that Jesus died for all, that still does NOTHING to support your view. You have no "ONLY" (as you've proven) so you cannot find any Scripture that states ONLY this subgroup of all is actually meant (God just never got it right in Scripture). IF you proved Jesus did not die for all, that could mean He died for no one, that He died ONLY for people then but not people how, that He died ONLY for Catholics but not Protestants, that He died ONLY for boys but not girls, etc. You are theorizing the "FEW" of your theory but you have NOT ONE SCRIPTURE that states that. NOTHING in Scripture, NOTHING in history, just a wild new theory of one man who lived in the 15th Century and radicals who embraced his veiw to counter an equally invalid, new, unbiblical view of Arminianists.





Never debated.

And in so doing, you have proven that your entire new horrible invention is completely MISSING in Scripture. NONE of your Scriptures state the essential word (the whole point) of your invention, the word "ONLY." And of course, you are just using circular reasoning to assume that those with faith (the Elect, sheep, friends) are thus the only ones for whom He died. Pure circular reasoning.

If I wrote that my wife gave birth to our four-year-old, that is not proof that she ONLY gave birth to our four-year-old and thus not to our one-year-old. If I wrote that Ford makes Mustangs, that does NOT prove it therefore ONLY makes Mustangs and all other products with "FORD" on them cannot be made by Ford.

.
[/QUOTE]
What in the world is the L invention? Explain, please.

But we do agree that Many doesn't = few. So, where do you come up with Few? You're the one who keeps insisting it must be an"unknown few" - when it is neither! Jesus knows all his elect. And that's the only thing that matters! And Rev 7:9, assuming it is speaking of saints in heaven, says their number can't be counted.

Meanwhile, come up with just one text that says Jesus died for each and every person in the world. Just One. You can't come up with one explicit proof text? Just one, man.

 

[Albion]

"Few" is what predestinarians, i.e. believers in a predetermined Elect, claim as their understanding of the matter and you have aligned yourself with that POV. That's the answer to your question here.

Jesus knows all his elect. And that's the only thing that matters!

Then why would you question the exact numbers that are involved?

And Rev 7:9, assuming it is speaking of saints in heaven, says their number can't be counted.

Do you think that means that God literally would be unable to count any segment of the population of humans, living and/or dead? Or saints. Or angels. No. The wording, therefore, isn't saying that.

Meanwhile, come up with just one text that says Jesus died for each and every person in the world. Just One.

You've had that shown to you innumerable times already, so that routine of insisting that "All" means "not All" is dead on arrival. Unless, that is, you can come up with some independent, credible, expert, presentation--not just your own say-so--which supports your contention. So far, you haven't been able to do so, which isn't exactly surprising.

 

[Doran]

@Doran

When you find the verse that states that Jesus did not die for all but rather ONLY FOR SOME FEW, then quote it.




.

There is no verse for "only some few". Jesus indeed died for MANY -- all known by the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

When you find the verse that says Christ died for each and every person in the world, then quote it.

 

[Doran]

"Few" is what predestinarians, i.e. believers in a predetermined Elect, claim as their understanding of the matter and you have aligned yourself with that POV. That's the answer to your question here.


Then why would you question the exact numbers that are involved?


Do you think that means that God literally would be unable to count any segment of the population of humans, living and/or dead? Or saints. Or angels. No. The wording, therefore, isn't saying that.



You've had that shown to you innumerable times already, so that routine of insisting that "All" means "not All" is dead on arrival. Unless, that is, you can come up with some independent, credible, expert, presentation--not just your own say-so--which supports your contention. So far, you haven't been able to do so, which isn't exactly surprising.

See how you misrepresent me. I definitely believe All means All -- just not only in the quantitative sense.

And when have I questioned "exact numbers"? Can you quote me or are you fibbing about me again?

Also, I don't care what you allege about predestinarians's beliefs. I know what MY bible says and it says MANY in several passages. What part of "many" don't you get?

Get busy and quit stalling already. Give me ONE text that explicitly teaches that Jesus died for each and every person under the sun.

 

[Albion]

When you find the verse that says Christ died for each and every person in the world, then quote it.

Then you will reply "But ALL doesn't mean ALL. It just means 'nice' or 'good' (or something else of your own choosing)."

The sooner that you give up that gambit the better.

And, by the way, shall we take your reply here to mean that you haven't yet found any Bible authority who agrees with your argument??

 

[Albion]

See how you misrepresent me. I definitely believe All means All -- just not only in the quantitative sense.

And I actually agree with you completely--just not in a serious sense.

 

[Albion]

See how you misrepresent me.

Can you quote me or are you fibbing about me again?

Also, I don't care what you allege...

Have you given any thought to finding a different hobby?

 

[Josiah]

There is no verse for "only some few"

Yup, even you must acknowledge that. There goes the "L" dogma you are defending.

Indeed, there is no "ONLY" at all. In any Scripture on this topic. The entire horrible invention is completely missing in Scripture (and history).

.Jesus indeed died for MANY

Of course. Only the TULIP anti-Calvin folks who invented your horrible dogma disagree. They often theorize that Jesus died ONLY for the elect, but as you know, Scripture never says that. BUT if that theory is right, then well the "many" would be perhaps less than 1% of population in the First Century, perhaps up to 10% by the 4th. Currently it's at 20%. For most of the church's history (discounting anything before 33AD when perhaps the percent of elect was ZERO) the percent might averages 10% at best. BUT that's only if we consider the "elect" to be all who were baptized as a baby, any counted as such by some king (or declared to be such by royal decree) or simply state any cultural or historic identification with Christianity. The Elect are a very small few. But of course, there is nothing in Scripture that says Jesus died only for the elect. In fact, there is no "ONLY" ever on this topic.


Since no Anti-Calvin theorist has a single Scripture that states their new invention, they are forced to reference Scriptures that do not state their horrible invention. Matthew 20:28 is their favorite. But of course, as everyone knows, it does not state that Jesus did not die for all but rather only for some few. It does say "many". The Greek word "polloi" does not exactly mean "all" but it is the antonym for "few" and thus contradicts the horrible view of Limited Atonement. And this Greek word almost always is used to show inclusiveness (not the exclusiveness these radical Anti-Calvin folks wish it did). In the LXX, it is the word used for the Hebrew "rabbim" which is THE most inclusive word in the Hebrew language.


Not that you'll actually read any of this. We are obviously wasting our time.





.

 

[Doran]

Since there is no passage in scripture that teaches universal atonement for all, without exception, on this little green planet we should not be surprised to find quite a few passages that narrows down for us WHO the "many" (Isa 53:12; Mat 26:28; Mk 10:45; Lk 22:20; Heb 9:28) are for whom Christ died. Some of the "many" texts cited above are ambiguous but other passages throughout scripture are specific and it's these more specific passages that talk about particular people or groups we'll focus on here.

1. We saw already in John 10 that Jesus laid down his life for his sheep, of which there are two flocks (Jews and Gentiles), and that the Good Shepherd of these flocks knows each of his sheep personally and intimately.

2. In John 17, we saw that Christ prayed for two groups of the elect (again Jewish and Gentile believers), while He explicitly omitted the world for whom he allegedly died, according to UABs. Of course, no UAB can tell us why Jesus would do this. All we get is crickets.

3. In John 15 Jesus tells us that he lays down his life specifically for his friends, and that there is NO greater love than this; although, one would reasonably think that dying for your enemies would show even greater love. But what do I know even though it's more than UAB's know?

4. Jesus also taught that all the Father's elect -- all who the Father gives to the Son -- WILL come to him, and the Father's will is that Jesus should lose NONE of who the Father gave but will raise ALL of them up on the last day (Jn 6:37-40). Therefore, since Jesus will raise all those up on the last day, the only logical inference that can be made is that he died for all the Father's elect.

Then we have these passages outside of John's gospel:

1. Acts 20:28-29
28 Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood. 29 I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock.
NIV

This is a pretty specific passage....PLUS Paul equates the "church of God" with flock of sheep! So, this sheds more light on the John 10 passage, doesn't it?

2. 1 Cor 6:20; 7:23a
20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body...You were bought at a price...
NIV

I know the UABs have a really tough time with personal pronouns. They would think "you" is talking about everyone in the world. Yet, Paul didn't address his epistle to all in the world but to a very specific group of people (1Cor 1:2).

3. Eph 5:2, 25
2 and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God...25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her
NIV

Oh my...personal pronouns. Can we know who they are? Maybe those in 1:1b and 5:25?


4. Gal 3:13-14
13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree." 14 He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.
NIV

Oh boy....more of those pesky personal pronouns. Who may they be? Maybe those in 1:2b?

5. Titus 2:14
14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good.
NIV

Paul wrote this to Titus who shared the same faith as Paul (1:4a). I wonder if any UAB can find a verse that says that everyone in the world is Christ's "very own"?

6. 1 John 3:16
16 This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us.
NIV

John wrote to people very dear to his own heart, calling them "My dear children" (2:1) and he very clearly identified with the recipients of his epistle (2:2).

So there you have you it. Christ atoned for the sins of the "many" and those "many" are very clearly identified in scripture. He atoned for the sins of a PARTICULAR people: For sheep, for friends, for the elect, for all given to Christ by the Father, for the church. And wouldn't you know there is a conspicuous absence of the entire world, of all without exception being identified with the "many"or with these particular people. I wonder why...

 

[Doran]

Yup, even you must acknowledge that. There goes the "L" dogma you are defending.

Indeed, there is no "ONLY" at all. In any Scripture on this topic. The entire horrible invention is completely missing in Scripture (and history).





Of course. Only the TULIP anti-Calvin folks who invented your horrible dogma disagree. They often theorize that Jesus died ONLY for the elect, but as you know, Scripture never says that. BUT if that theory is right, then well the "many" would be perhaps less than 1% of population in the First Century, perhaps up to 10% by the 4th. Currently it's at 20%. For most of the church's history (discounting anything before 33AD when perhaps the percent of elect was ZERO) the percent might averages 10% at best. BUT that's only if we consider the "elect" to be all who were baptized as a baby, any counted as such by some king (or declared to be such by royal decree) or simply state any cultural or historic identification with Christianity. The Elect are a very small few. But of course, there is nothing in Scripture that says Jesus died only for the elect. In fact, there is no "ONLY" ever on this topic.


Since no Anti-Calvin theorist has a single Scripture that states their new invention, they are forced to reference Scriptures that do not state their horrible invention. Matthew 20:28 is their favorite. But of course, as everyone knows, it does not state that Jesus did not die for all but rather only for some few. It does say "many". The Greek word "polloi" does not exactly mean "all" but it is the antonym for "few" and thus contradicts the horrible view of Limited Atonement. And this Greek word almost always is used to show inclusiveness (not the exclusiveness these radical Anti-Calvin folks wish it did). In the LXX, it is the word used for the Hebrew "rabbim" which is THE most inclusive word in the Hebrew language.


Not that you'll actually read any of this. We are obviously wasting our time.





.

There's NO biblical contradiction between Many and Few because Few isn't taught in the bible. The contradiction is but figment of your overwrought imagination.

And because your knowledge of scripture is sadly, as limited as the atonement, you fail to take into account the deaths of all the millions of young "innocents" (infants, babies, young children) throughout the centuries who died having no true knowledge of Good and Evil. If they died apart from being in Christ from all eternity, they are right now suffering in the torments of hell. So...so much for you inane theory of a "few".

You should memorize Rev 7:9!

 

[Doran]

Yup, even you must acknowledge that. There goes the "L" dogma you are defending.

Indeed, there is no "ONLY" at all. In any Scripture on this topic. The entire horrible invention is completely missing in Scripture (and history).





Of course. Only the TULIP anti-Calvin folks who invented your horrible dogma disagree. They often theorize that Jesus died ONLY for the elect, but as you know, Scripture never says that. BUT if that theory is right, then well the "many" would be perhaps less than 1% of population in the First Century, perhaps up to 10% by the 4th. Currently it's at 20%. For most of the church's history (discounting anything before 33AD when perhaps the percent of elect was ZERO) the percent might averages 10% at best. BUT that's only if we consider the "elect" to be all who were baptized as a baby, any counted as such by some king (or declared to be such by royal decree) or simply state any cultural or historic identification with Christianity. The Elect are a very small few. But of course, there is nothing in Scripture that says Jesus died only for the elect. In fact, there is no "ONLY" ever on this topic.


Since no Anti-Calvin theorist has a single Scripture that states their new invention, they are forced to reference Scriptures that do not state their horrible invention. Matthew 20:28 is their favorite. But of course, as everyone knows, it does not state that Jesus did not die for all but rather only for some few. It does say "many". The Greek word "polloi" does not exactly mean "all" but it is the antonym for "few" and thus contradicts the horrible view of Limited Atonement. And this Greek word almost always is used to show inclusiveness (not the exclusiveness these radical Anti-Calvin folks wish it did). In the LXX, it is the word used for the Hebrew "rabbim" which is THE most inclusive word in the Hebrew language.


Not that you'll actually read any of this. We are obviously wasting our time.





.

Yeah but Mat 20:28 also doesn't say that Jesus died for all. So....there's that. But is does say MANY. Score 1 for me and 0 for you.

 

[Doran]

And by the way what is "L dogma"? Can any of you UABs explain your own terms or phrases?

 

[Josiah]

There's NO biblical contradiction between Many and Few because Few isn't taught in the bible.

@Doran

Not that you'll read this.


There goes the "L" in TULIP. The Limited atonement. The dogma that Jesus did NOT die for all but ONLY for some, for those who eventually would be given faith ("the Elect") and that agree that number is a very, very small percentage of the population.

Since no Anti-Calvin theorist has a single Scripture that states their new invention, they are forced to reference Scriptures that do not state their horrible invention. Matthew 20:28 is their favorite. But of course, as everyone knows, it does not state that Jesus did not die for all but rather only for some few. It does say "many". The Greek word "polloi" does not exactly mean "all" but it is the antonym for "few" and thus contradicts the horrible view of Limited Atonement. And this Greek word almost always is used to show inclusiveness (not the exclusiveness these radical Anti-Calvin folks wish it did). In the LXX, it is the word used for the Hebrew "rabbim" which is THE most inclusive word in the Hebrew language.

That you don't even know what the "L" means in TULIP just confirms that this is a topic about which you know very little.

Yeah but Mat 20:28 also doesn't say that Jesus died for all. So....there's that. But is does say MANY.

It also doesn't say "ONLY for some." Your entire position is ONLY SOME. Without the "only" and then who that "only" is, your position is completely missing.


Here are the two positions:


1. Jesus died for all people.

Here are just a few of the Scriptures that state this view. The view echos them, verbatim.

1 John 2:2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.​

John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Hebrews 2:9 But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

2 Corinthians 5:14 For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all

John 1:29 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

2 Corinthians 5:15 And he died for all

2 Corinthians 5:19 That is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.

1 Timothy 2:6 Who gave himself as a ransom for all.

and many more just like the above.

+ This view does NOT hold that all individuals have personal justification since that requires a second aspect, the divine gift of faith. BOTH the CROSS and FAITH are 100% the work and gift of God and together they bring justification (narrow sense) to the individual.

+ This view simply echos those words from the Bible. It doesn't explain anything, it doesn't deny anything, it affirms one point: Jesus died for all. It echos verbatim what God so often stated.

+ It is the view of the Early Church Fathers, of the Orthodox Church, the Catholic Church, the Anglican Church, the Lutheran Church, the Methodist Church, most Baptist churches and Evangelical churches and nearly all other denominations and faith communities. It was declared doctrine by a Church Council in the 9th Century. It was the view of John Calvin.



2. No, Jesus did NOT die for all people but ONLY for some few.
I realize you now repudiate this position, now claiming the Bible states that Jesus did not die for all but only for __________ ."


Here are the Scriptures that state this view (and your unique spin on it).

Crickets.

NOT ONE verse that even contains the word "only" in this context.
None that state ONLY the elect.
None that state ONLY for future believers.
None that state ONLY Catholic.
None that state ONLY people alive now but not future people.
None that state ONLY males.
None that state ONLY for (we won't tell you).
No ONLY at all. Ever in this context.


+ For God to be wrong in all those Scriptures that specifically, verbatim, in black-and-white words all who can read see, that Jesus died for all.... don't you need Scriptures (perhaps an equal number) that specifically, verbatim, in black-and-white words all who can read see, that Jesus did NOT die for all but ONLY for _________?"

+ There is a verse that says "Jesus died for the Elect" but none that say ONLY for the Elect. And there are verses that state that Jesus died for us (Christians) but none that state ONLY for us (indeed, see 1 John 2:2). And without the "only" the point is unsubstantiated. Apologists of this view must employ a silly logical fallacy, one illustrated by this: "Ford makes Mustangs, ergo Ford ONLY makes Mustangs." Or "Bob loves his wife, ergo he ONLY loves his wife and not his kids." Even my four year old son can see the absurdity of the logical fallacy radical, extremist Calvinists use as their apologetic for this invention. The whole apologetic has not one Scripture that states their point. It's based entirely on a logical fallacy.

Score

So, sure. Let's do as you request, compare the number of Scripture about the death of Jesus and see how many say "He did for all" with those that state, "No, He ONLY died for (You don't want to say)?

"ALL": AT least 3
"ONLY ______" : Zero




Radical Calvinists (who actually repudiate Calvin on this point) invented this dogma in the late 16th Century in response to Arminianists (who embrace some forms of synergism and Pelagianism) and necessitates the opposition having those views. It doesn't work at all on people who aren't Arminianists. It's based on NOT ONE VERSE in Scripture (so much for Sola Scriptura) and on a fallacy that permits them to INSERT the word "only" into texts, the logical fallacy that is the entire basis of their apologetic is like this: "Ford makes Mustangs, ergo Ford ONLY makes Mustangs." Their entire apologetic rests on this logical fallacy. And the absence of any Scripture that states it.



@Doran

how come Jesus in John 17 limited his prayer to the elect and excluded the very world that you insist he died for?

How desperate.

So, when I pray for my youngest son, that proves that I hate my older son? Jesus also prayed for Jerusalem, does that prove He ONLY died for those residing in that city? Come on. Where are you getting this silliness?



.