REDEMPTION/ATONEMENT: US vs THEM (the L of TULIP)

[atpollard]

There are no Scriptures - in Acts or any other book accepted as Scripture by anyone - that states that Jesus did not die for all …

… that you are willing to see.

 

[Albion]

There are no Scriptures - in Acts or any other book accepted as Scripture by anyone - that states that Jesus did not die for all but rather ONLY for SOME.

… that you are willing to see.

But least we've been shown those verses that say Christ died for all, whereas you have posted: 1) that you don't choose to post any verses that say He died for only a select group, and 2) that you prefer to think that he died for such a group in any case.

 

[atpollard]

But least we've been shown those verses that say Christ died for all, whereas you have posted: 1) that you don't choose to post any verses that say He died for only a select group, and 2) that you prefer to think that he died for such a group in any case.

Post #1 “many” is not “all” … you trample what has been provided and wonder why I do not bother to post more verses for you to scream “taint so” at.

The good news is that salvation is offered to all men without distinction (not all men without exception), unlike the OT. Under the Law, all you needed to do to be forgiven was to offer your sacrifice in the temple … except as a Gentile, you were forbidden to enter the temple, so salvation was unavailable to your people. Through Jesus, anyone can believe … but not everyone is drawn [John 6:44] not everyone is His sheep [John 10] whom He died for and who hear His voice.

Revelation 7:9 describes the ALL whom God loves, the WHOLE WORLD that came to Him.

 

[Albion]

Post #1 “many” is not “all” … you trample what has been provided and wonder why I do not bother to post more verses for you to scream “taint so” at.

By now I know that you not only choose not to answer but that you also cannot answer. Not with verses that teach what you say you'd prefer to believe.

The good news is that salvation is offered to all men without distinction (not all men without exception), unlike the OT. Under the Law, all you needed to do to be forgiven was to offer your sacrifice in the temple … except as a Gentile, you were forbidden to enter the temple, so salvation was unavailable to your people.

Surely you realize that no one in that era WAS saved. The standard, the Law, was there, but it was impossible for anyone to be justified by keeping it perfectly for the whole of a lifetime. THAT is why a Savior was needed, even for such figures as Moses, David, and Abraham.

 

[Josiah]

Ummm … our argument is that Christ died for those that will spend eternity in heaven.

@atpollard

The disagreement that those radical, latter-day Calvinists (whom you promote) had with Scripture and historic Christianity is that they claimed Jesus died ONLY for those who would spend eternity in heaven. You promote and endorse their invention.

What Scripture, the Council of Orange, and the common faith of Christians have held is that Jesus died for all people. This Scripture repeatedly, flat-out, verbatim states. Nowhere does Scripture state this invention of these handful of Calvinists, this "L" that is the topic of this thread.

Friend, all Christians believe that Christ died for those who are or will spend eternity in heaven. That's not the dispute, is it? What these latter-day Calvinists invented was the dogma that He ONLY died for them, NOT for "all" as the Bible states.

Do even YOU believe that “MOST of the 8 billion people now on Earth and perhaps 15-20 billion once on Earth” will spend eternity in heaven?

No. But that's not the issue, is it? The issue is the "L" of TULIP, that Jesus did not die for all people (as the Bible so often verbatim states) but rather, instead of that, He died ONLY for some people (as the Bible never states).

What these "L" supporters must do is eliminate faith, insist that faith is irrelevant to personal justification, that ALL that matters is whether Jesus died for them or not. But historic, biblical Christianity does not forsake or deny the role of faith. I do not believe that all the humans who have walked on Earth are in heaven or will be.... but I hold this NOT because the Bible is wrong in teaching that Jesus died for all but that the Bible is right in teaching that not all have faith.


Blessings on your lenten observation.


- Josiah



.

 

[atpollard]

The disagreement that those radical, latter-day Calvinists

Who cares about them … (I) was trying to talk with (you).

 

[atpollard]

Surely you realize that no one in that era WAS saved.

Moses and Elijah were from that era and appeared at the transfiguration … I take that as an above average indication that they are saved. Somewhere in scripture there is a list of the “saints” of old … are those saved or unsaved saints?

I simply “respectfully disagree” with your conclusion.
No one was saved by works … in any era.

 

[prism]

This is confusing. Josiah gave you several examples that fit precisely what it is that you asked for--writings of Apostles, from the Bible, and some of these even use the exact wording you used. For example, the words "for all."

You did refer to "evangelistic preaching," if that is an additional requirement. However, the Apostle Paul is considered to be the most famous evangelist in world history, and the communications we have from him as books of the New Testament fulfill that request of yours perfectly.

I believe you knew what I was referring to, but to make it more clear try these…

Acts 2:14–40


Acts 3:12–26


Acts 4:5–12


Acts 7


Acts 8:5


Acts 10:28–47


Acts 11:4–18


Acts 13:16–41


Acts 14:3–7


Acts 15:7–11

 

[prism]

To my knowledge, there's nothing specific within the Book of Acts that states "Jesus died for all" OR "Jesus did not die for all people but rather only for some."

But there are verses in other biblical books, which Christians usually accept as equally normative. Among them (just to share a few)...

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

2 Corinthians 5:15 And he died for all.

1 Timothy 2:6 "Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all.

There are many more. And of course, these contradict the "L" of TULIP (the topic of this thread), the invention of some radical, latter-day Calvinists that Jesus did NOT die for all but ONLY for SOME.

There are no Scriptures - in Acts or any other book accepted as Scripture by anyone - that states that Jesus did not die for all but rather ONLY for SOME.


Blessings!


Josiah



.

Yes but the case is usually presented as ‘you can’t tell someone that Jesus died for them’. My point is that neither did the Apostles. They generally put out a general call of faith and repentance towards God and let those who had ears be drawn by the Gospel message.

 

[Albion]

Moses and Elijah were from that era and appeared at the transfiguration … I take that as an above average indication that they are saved.

Not if we mean bound for heaven, no. However, I was responding to your statement ("Under the Law, all you needed to do to be forgiven was to offer your sacrifice in the temple") which I took to mean that you consider them to already be in glory.

The Christian church, in agreement with the Bible, holds that such people were in Paradise, not Heaven, and remained there until allowed to go to Heaven as a result of Christ's sacrifice for sins accomplished on the Cross.

 

[Albion]

I believe you knew what I was referring to, but to make it more clear try these…

What you "were referring to" were Bible verses indicating that "Apostles are proclaiming something to the effect of, 'Jesus died for you', or 'Jesus died for all.'".

Not only were you given "something to the effect of..." but you were shown verses that state exactly what you asked for.

So, there was no misunderstanding about what you were asking.

 

[Messy]

Post #1 “many” is not “all” … you trample what has been provided and wonder why I do not bother to post more verses for you to scream “taint so” at.

The good news is that salvation is offered to all men without distinction (not all men without exception), unlike the OT. Under the Law, all you needed to do to be forgiven was to offer your sacrifice in the temple … except as a Gentile, you were forbidden to enter the temple, so salvation was unavailable to your people. Through Jesus, anyone can believe … but not everyone is drawn [John 6:44] not everyone is His sheep [John 10] whom He died for and who hear His voice.

Revelation 7:9 describes the ALL whom God loves, the WHOLE WORLD that came to Him.

I believe Jesus died for the elect in the sense of suppose noone would want Him and He knew that beforehand, I don't think He would have died for nothing. He did it to save the ones who accept Him, His bride, but He judges ppl for not accepting His offer, so if they had nothing to accept, because He didn't die for them, He couldn't judge em for it.

Hebrews 6
4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame.

So they first partook of the Holy Spirit because He died for them and they initially accepted His offer, like the seed on stony places and among thorns, they believe for a while, so He died for those non elect. Else they could not have partaken of the Holy Spirit.

But he who received the seed on stony places, this is he who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy; 21 yet he has no root in himself, but endures only for a while. For when tribulation or persecution arises because of the word, immediately he stumbles. 22 Now he who received seed among the thorns is he who hears the word, and the cares of this world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word, and he becomes unfruitful.

 

[prism]

So, there was no misunderstanding about what you were asking.

Sorry but you were the one who stated, "This is confusing," today at 6:16 AM.

Do you mind showing me where the Apostles are preaching to the effect of 'Jesus died for you' or 'Jesus loves all of you' out of the verses I cited from Acts?

 

[atpollard]

Not if we mean bound for heaven, no. However, I was responding to your statement ("Under the Law, all you needed to do to be forgiven was to offer your sacrifice in the temple") which I took to mean that you consider them to already be in glory.

The Christian church, in agreement with the Bible, holds that such people were in Paradise, not Heaven, and remained there until allowed to go to Heaven as a result of Christ's sacrifice for sins accomplished on the Cross.

Thank goodness you strained out that gnat, or we would never have choked down that camel.

 

[Albion]

Sorry but you were the one who stated, "This is confusing," today at 6:16 AM.

Yes. Your approach to issues tends to be confusing. Initially, you pose a question as though you are seriously in doubt about it, would like more information, or the like. But when you get a reply you switch from acting coy or uninformed to going on the attack.

In the beginning, you may ask if there's anything in Scripture that suggests a certain doctrine, but then when you get the answer from someone who is basically helping you with the issue, you swing into action by denouncing it (and sometimes them as well) by referring to verses or other evidence you had all along and were just saving in order to get an opponent on record so that you could attack. This is not normal behavior on discussion boards, so 'yes,' why it should be your style is a bit confusing.

Do you mind showing me where the Apostles are preaching to the effect of 'Jesus died for you' or 'Jesus loves all of you' out of the verses I cited from Acts?

You asked if they preached such a belief, and the answer is "yes." This was proven. So, then you switched the question, narrowing your inquiry to just one book of the Bible, the Acts of the Apostles.

Not only does that make your first question appear to be a set-up, but you've offered absolutely no reason for then confining the expressed belief of "Apostles" to only one book of the Bible. Obviously, Christians do not intentionally dismiss parts of God's word simply in order to create a doctrine that's more to their liking.

 

[prism]

Yes. Your approach to issues tends to be confusing. Initially, you pose a question as though you are seriously in doubt about it, would like more information, or the like. But when you get a reply you switch from acting coy or uninformed to going on the attack.

In the beginning, you may ask if there's anything in Scripture that suggests a certain doctrine, but then when you get the answer from someone who is basically helping you with the issue, you swing into action by denouncing it (and sometimes them as well) by referring to verses or other evidence you had all along and were just saving in order to get an opponent on record so that you could attack. This is not normal behavior on discussion boards, so 'yes,' why it should be your style is a bit confusing.


You asked if they preached such a belief, and the answer is "yes." This was proven. So, then you switched the question, narrowing your inquiry to just one book of the Bible, the Acts of the Apostles.

Not only does that make your first question appear to be a set-up, but you've offered absolutely no reason for then confining the expressed belief of "Apostles" to only one book of the Bible. Obviously, Christians do not intentionally dismiss parts of God's word simply in order to create a doctrine that's more to their liking.

It's called 'trying to be nice'...instead of a direct challenge.

At least it's better than constantly attacking other views without offering one's own view.

 

[Josiah]

I believe Jesus died for the elect in the sense of suppose noone would want Him and He knew that beforehand, I don't think He would have died for nothing. He did it to save the ones who accept Him, His bride, but He judges ppl for not accepting His offer, so if they had nothing to accept, because He didn't die for them, He couldn't judge em for it.

@Messy @atpollard


Well, I'd agree with this: It would be dishonest of Jesus (and us) to hold out something - calling on them to accept it, condemning them if they don't - if that was never available to them, never for them.

But that's opinion. What we know is that Scripture (that's GOD speaking) - repeatedly, literally, verbatim, flat-out - states that Jesus died for all people. And it never, not once, states that actually He died ONLY for SOME and NOT for all.

Now, it's true that this death is EFFECTUAL only for some, that is for those who apprehend it via the gift of faith, but that's a whole other issue. And I do not believe that all the humans who walk or have walked on Earth are in heaven or will be.... but I hold this NOT because the Bible is wrong in teaching that Jesus died for all but that the Bible is right in teaching that not all have faith.



.

 

[prism]

What Scripture, the Council of Orange, and the common faith of Christians have held is that Jesus died for all people. This Scripture repeatedly, flat-out, verbatim states. Nowhere does Scripture state this invention of these handful of Calvinists, this "L" that is the topic of this thread.

Not in Scripture?

For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Matthew 26: 28

Mark 14:24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.

Notice Jesus says 'many' not 'all'.

 

[Josiah]

Not in Scripture?

For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Matthew 26: 28

Mark 14:24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.

Notice Jesus says 'many' not 'all'.

Notice, Scripture says "all" ...

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

2 Corinthians 5:15 And he died for all.

1 Timothy 2:6 "Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all.

There are more.

Where are the verses that reject the above and state instead that Jesus died ONLY for some subgroup of humans, NOT for all?

Acts 2:14–40 Acts 3:12–26 Acts 4:5–12Acts 7Acts 8:5Acts 10:28–47Acts 11:4–18 Acts 13:16–41Acts 14:3–7Acts 15:7–11

Of course, none of these state that Jesus did not die for all (as the Bible repeatedly, literally, verbatim, flat-out states) but rather, instead, ONLY for some SUBGROUP of humanity.

You seem to think that "many" mandates ONLY some few; it does not. There are many people living on Earth today, that does not mean that most people are not living on Earth now, "many" mandating that ONLY SOME SMALL SUBGROUP of humans on earth are living on earth.




.

 

[Albion]

Not in Scripture?

For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Matthew 26: 28

Mark 14:24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.

Notice Jesus says 'many' not 'all'.

We've seen this argument before, but how in the world does "many" or "the many" translate as only some particular, select group ???

Clearly, I'd say, it does not, yet a number of posts have been put up by believers in Calvinist theology presenting that point as being so obviously a reference to a special group of "Elect" people chosen by God before their births that the posters don't even feel a need to explain in their message how the word suggests such a conclusion!

And, by the way, to say "many" does NOT necessarily rule out the total being "all." It's just a way of saying that the number is very large (which "all" would be).