Why didn't Jesus die for the other thief?

[1689Dave]

Not necessarily. Some people refuse the forgiveness. That's another way of putting the principle that you always miss or have no willingness to talk about.

Here's the point you cannot escape. Pelagianism. People save themselves. Heresy. Notice the others won't touch this situation, It will confirm their Pelagianism too.

 

[Josiah]

Complaining will not help. the Study of the subject, starting with Martin Luther, Lectures on Romans will.

Luther never held to any of your heresies; certainly not you one here at faith is irrelevant to personal justification, that if Christ died for one that one has personal justification irregardless of faith.

As you know, the out-of-context snippet you quote from his lecture on Romans in 1515 was while he was still a Catholic monk and is not reflective of Luther's later theology. The source you gave for this STRESSED that point, noting that Luther strongly embraced that Jesus died for all, but you just neglected to note the date of the quote and that Luther embraced that Jesus died for all because you are dishonest.

It is a heresy of yours to insist that faith is irrelevant to personal justification and thus if Jesus died for you, on that basis alone, one is saved.

And you are just contradicting clear Scripture that Jesus died for all and proving you can't find ANY Scripture that states that Jesus ONLY died for SOME... and the reason you can't find your horrible theology in Scripture is because it's not there, the opposite of it is there.

See post 13, 16 and 18.




.

 

[1689Dave]

Luther never held to any of your heresies; certainly not you one here at faith is irrelevant to personal justification, that if Christ died for one that one has personal justification irregardless of faith.

As you know, the out-of-context snippet you quote from his lecture on Romans in 1515 was while he was still a Catholic monk and is not reflective of Luther's later theology. The source you gave for this STRESSED that point, noting that Luther strongly embraced that Jesus died for all, but you just neglected to note the date of the quote and that Luther embraced that Jesus died for all because you are dishonest.

It is a heresy of yours to insist that faith is irrelevant to personal justification and thus if Jesus died for you, on that basis alone, one is saved.

And you are just contradicting clear Scripture that Jesus died for all and proving you can't find ANY Scripture that states that Jesus ONLY died for SOME... and the reason you can't find your horrible theology in Scripture is because it's not there, the opposite of it is there.

See post 13, 16 and 18.




.

Luther, Lectures on Romans (1515-1516), from the scholia at Rom. 15:33 (“Now the God of peace be with you all,” LW 25:375–76): “The second argument [against predestination] is that ‘God desires all men to be saved’ (1 Tim. 2:4). . . . these verses must always be understood as pertaining to the elect only, as the apostle says in 2 Tim. 2:10 ‘everything for the sake of the elect.’ For in an absolute sense Christ did not die for all, because he says: ‘This is my blood which is poured out for you’ and ‘for many’—he does not say: for all—‘for the forgiveness of sins’ (Mark 14:24, Matt. 26:28).” Was Luther a Calvinist?

 

[Josiah]

Luther, Lectures on Romans (1515-1516)

Luther never held to any of your heresies; certainly not you one here at faith is irrelevant to personal justification, that if Christ died for one that one has personal justification irregardless of faith.

As you know, the out-of-context snippet you quote from his lecture on Romans in 1515 was while he was still a Catholic monk and is not reflective of Luther's later theology. The source you gave for this STRESSED that point, noting that Luther strongly embraced that Jesus died for all, but you just neglected to note the date of the quote and that Luther embraced that Jesus died for all because you are dishonest.

It is a heresy of yours to insist that faith is irrelevant to personal justification and thus if Jesus died for you, on that basis alone, one is saved.

And you are just contradicting clear Scripture that Jesus died for all and proving you can't find ANY Scripture that states that Jesus ONLY died for SOME... and the reason you can't find your horrible theology in Scripture is because it's not there, the opposite of it is there.


Concerning your heresy that Jesus did NOT die for all but rather ONLY for some unknown few....

"So that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.' Hebrews 2:9

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

"He died for all." 2 Corinthians 5:15

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


and many more like them. And not one verse that states "Jesus did not die for all but rather only for some unknown few." And not one that says "Jesus died for one thief who died with him but that's it, just him."



Concerning your heresy that faith in Christ is irrelevant to personal justification; if Christ died for you then you have personal justification regardless of whether you have faith or not....


"For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing but is the gift of God." Ephesians 2:8

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believes in him will not perish but have eternal life." John 3:16

"God justifies him who has faith in Christ Jesus." Romans 3:26

"Everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.” Acts 10:43

“Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved." Acts 16:31

And so very, very more Scriptures just like the above. And not one verse that states, "If you are one of the lucky few for whom Christ died (and you won't be told if you are) then you are saved - you can spit in his face, denounce him and reject his Cross or believe it just doesn't matter because faith don't matter for nothing."



See post 13, 16 and 18.

.

 

[1689Dave]

Luther never held to any of your heresies; certainly not you one here at faith is irrelevant to personal justification, that if Christ died for one that one has personal justification irregardless of faith.

As you know, the out-of-context snippet you quote from his lecture on Romans in 1515 was while he was still a Catholic monk and is not reflective of Luther's later theology. The source you gave for this STRESSED that point, noting that Luther strongly embraced that Jesus died for all, but you just neglected to note the date of the quote and that Luther embraced that Jesus died for all because you are dishonest.

It is a heresy of yours to insist that faith is irrelevant to personal justification and thus if Jesus died for you, on that basis alone, one is saved.

And you are just contradicting clear Scripture that Jesus died for all and proving you can't find ANY Scripture that states that Jesus ONLY died for SOME... and the reason you can't find your horrible theology in Scripture is because it's not there, the opposite of it is there.

See post 13, 16 and 18.




.

I'm quoting Luther.

Regarding Romans 9:20-21, Luther wrote:

“God will have all men to be saved” (1 Timothy 2:4), and he gave his Son for us men, and he created man for the sake of eternal life. And likewise: Everything is there for man’s sake and he is there for God’s sake in order that he may enjoy him, etc. But this objection [to God’s sovereignty in salvation] and others like it can just as easily be refuted as the first one: because all these sayings must be understood only with respect to the elect [emphasis in original], as the apostle says in 2 Timothy 2:10, “All for the elect.” Christ did not die for absolutely all, for he says: “This is my blood which is shed for you” (Luke 22:20) and “for many” (Mark 14:24)- he did not say: for all- “to the remission of sins” (Matthew 26:28). [Martin Luther, Lectures on Romans, translated and edited by Wilhelm Pauck (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1961), 252.]

 

[Lamb]

I'm quoting Luther.

Regarding Romans 9:20-21, Luther wrote:

“God will have all men to be saved” (1 Timothy 2:4), and he gave his Son for us men, and he created man for the sake of eternal life. And likewise: Everything is there for man’s sake and he is there for God’s sake in order that he may enjoy him, etc. But this objection [to God’s sovereignty in salvation] and others like it can just as easily be refuted as the first one: because all these sayings must be understood only with respect to the elect [emphasis in original], as the apostle says in 2 Timothy 2:10, “All for the elect.” Christ did not die for absolutely all, for he says: “This is my blood which is shed for you” (Luke 22:20) and “for many” (Mark 14:24)- he did not say: for all- “to the remission of sins” (Matthew 26:28). [Martin Luther, Lectures on Romans, translated and edited by Wilhelm Pauck (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1961), 252.]

Here's what Luther wrote in 1533

Luther, “Sermon for the First Sunday in Advent, 1533,” in Day by Day We Magnify You: Daily Readings for the Entire Year Selected from the Writings of Martin Luther, rev. ed., p. 10: “[Christ] helps not against one sin only but against all my sin; and not against my sin only, but against the whole world’s sin. He comes to take away not sickness only, but death; and not my death only, but the whole world’s death.”

 

[Albion]

Here's the point you cannot escape. Pelagianism. People save themselves. Heresy. Notice the others won't touch this situation, It will confirm their Pelagianism too.

:sigh:

But "others" HAVE touched this situation. Many times.

You simply refuse to listen when they explain that NO ONE here whom you are accusing does, actually, believe what you've accused them of believing!!

Still, all the careful explanations that have been given to you and were meant to put you straight about your mistake are just ignored at your end of the exchange. I am confident that the same thing will happen now again.

 

[Stravinsk]

Ah, the story of the repentant thief and the famous declaration by Christ. It's a fav by many a pastor the world over. Show those dirty sinners how easy it is to waltz into the Kingdom. Meanwhile, pass the collection plate please.

According to both Matthew 27:44 and Mark 15:32, Luke's version is a fiction. They both reviled Christ.

But wait! Zoom in, something miraculous happened and one of the thieves repented! Only Luke picked up on it. O k ....maybe...

"Today you will be with me in paradise" Luke 23:43

That's sort of a problem, because Christ died a little later. Where is he on that day? In paradise? Did He go to hang out with God in Heaven then return 3 days later to show himself to the disciples?

Not according to John 20:17 - Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

 

[1689Dave]

:sigh:

But "others" HAVE touched this situation. Many times.

You simply refuse to listen when they explain that NO ONE here whom you are accusing does, actually, believe what you've accused them of believing!!

Still, all the careful explanations that have been given to you and were meant to put you straight about your mistake are just ignored at your end of the exchange. I am confident that the same thing will happen now again.

They cannot answer this without exposing their Pelagianism. That's why it lingers on.

 

[1689Dave]

Here's what Luther wrote in 1533

Luther, “Sermon for the First Sunday in Advent, 1533,” in Day by Day We Magnify You: Daily Readings for the Entire Year Selected from the Writings of Martin Luther, rev. ed., p. 10: “[Christ] helps not against one sin only but against all my sin; and not against my sin only, but against the whole world’s sin. He comes to take away not sickness only, but death; and not my death only, but the whole world’s death.”

Remember, Luther later backslid into his Darth Vader role. No doubt the truth went down with him.

 

[1689Dave]

Ah, the story of the repentant thief and the famous declaration by Christ. It's a fav by many a pastor the world over. Show those dirty sinners how easy it is to waltz into the Kingdom. Meanwhile, pass the collection plate please.

According to both Matthew 27:44 and Mark 15:32, Luke's version is a fiction. They both reviled Christ.

But wait! Zoom in, something miraculous happened and one of the thieves repented! Only Luke picked up on it. O k ....maybe...

"Today you will be with me in paradise" Luke 23:43

That's sort of a problem, because Christ died a little later. Where is he on that day? In paradise? Did He go to hang out with God in Heaven then return 3 days later to show himself to the disciples?

Not according to John 20:17 - Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

This illustrates how even the worst hater of Christ can be made to love and cherish him.

 

[rstrats]

"Today you will be with me in paradise" Luke 23:43

That's sort of a problem, because Christ died a little later. Where is he on that day? In paradise? Did He go to hang out with God in Heaven then return 3 days later to show himself to the disciples?

I'm sure (figure of speech) that you've seen one of the explanations for that.

 

[1689Dave]

I'm sure (figure of speech) that you've seen one of the explanations for that.

Jesus died on the cross. His body died but God, his person cannot die. He reunited with his body in the resurrection.

 

[rstrats]

This illustrates how even the worst hater of Christ can be made to love and cherish him.

Any particular reason for quoting Stravinsk's comment with regard to Luke 23:43 and then not addressing it?

 

[1689Dave]

Any particular reason for quoting Stravinsk's comment with regard to Luke 23:43 and then not addressing it?

I answered it showing how the thief hated God but the New Birth opened his eyes and turned him into a believer.

 

[Lamb]

Remember, Luther later backslid into his Darth Vader role. No doubt the truth went down with him.

I have written this on this forum and many others...when reading Luther you have to take into account WHEN it was written, to WHOM it was written, and the CONTENT of how it was written. Luther went through different ideas during his life so to claim that this is what Luther believed without looking at WHEN, TO WHOM and CONTENT, then it shows you haven't done your research and don't know Luther.

 

[1689Dave]

I have written this on this forum and many others...when reading Luther you have to take into account WHEN it was written, to WHOM it was written, and the CONTENT of how it was written. Luther went through different ideas during his life so to claim that this is what Luther believed without looking at WHEN, TO WHOM and CONTENT, then it shows you haven't done your research and don't know Luther.

But Luther changed. And evidence shows it was not for the better. He became the Darth Vader of the Reformation.

 

[Albion]

Ah, the story of the repentant thief and the famous declaration by Christ. It's a fav by many a pastor the world over. Show those dirty sinners how easy it is to waltz into the Kingdom.

If it were actually easy, we wouldn't have people making it a point to come onto Christian forums in order to expose Christianity as a fraud.

They would either take the path you consider easy and join the faith...or else they would think of the whole thing the way we think of Scientology or Mormonism and not make campaigning against it some sort of personal crusade.

 

[Albion]

I'm sure (figure of speech) that you've seen one of the explanations for that.

...and so many other aspects of Christian belief. But you can see from the overkill, the absurd and deliberately insulting way that our friend denounces those ideas, that correcting an error or helping to increase anyone else's understanding is not his real purpose.

 

[Lamb]

But Luther changed. And evidence shows it was not for the better. He became the Darth Vader of the Reformation.

Ah, so when Luther's beliefs don't match up with yours then he's evil, but if he agrees with you then you'll quote him nonstop. haha got it.