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

[Albion]

Maybe not for Anglicans, but for Lutherans, it's the real deal...

That essentially says nothing,

Rome agrees we are justfied by faith.

I disagree. Insisting that Christ is "a big deal" and that Christ is the Savior is not, as you say, "essentially saying nothing."

So we've made progress, Josiah. We have learned that our friend isn't acquainted with the Roman Catholic, the Anglican, OR the Lutheran statements of belief.

 

[Messy]

I disagree. Insisting that Christ is "a big deal" and that Christ is the Savior is not, as you say, "essentially saying nothing."


Now to the issue:

The "L" invention of a few radical, latter-day Calvinists is that Jesus did NOT die for all but rather ONLY, exclusively, solely for SOME (estimates range from 1% to maybe as high as 20%) is never stated in Scripture and never believed by Christians for 1600 years.

HERE is what God literally, flat-out, verbatim, in black-and-white, repeatedly states:

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.

There are NO verses that state, "No, Jesus did not die for all but only for some." And never in 1600 years did Christians state that. The recent invention of "L" is not only never stated in Scripture but actually Scripture directly, flat-out contradicts that "L" invention - frequently, literally, verbatim, word-for-word.

The reason some are not personally justified is NOT that the Bible is wrong about Jesus dying for all but rather because the Bible is right about faith not being in all.


A blessed Holy Week to you and yours.


- Josiah


.

Yes but Isaiah 53 does say He carried the sins of many. Wonder if He was a sacrifice for everyone, yet only carried the sins of those who would be justified. How can He carry the sins of someone who doesn't let Him carry their sins? That's just like what I thought a while ago, that the old man of everyone died with Him on the cross. It didn't, because Hitler's old nature still exists. If he had repented in time, it would have died with Christ and Jesus would have carried his sins and done them away. And someone in that other post says the elect were justified with Him 2000 years ago, which Peter does say. So maybe only in retrospect when you come to faith or something or because He knows the future.

 

[prism]

So we've made progress, Josiah. We have learned that our friend isn't acquainted with the Roman Catholic, the Anglican, OR the Lutheran statements of belief.

Quoting me but speaking to Josiah isn't, that helpful.
Anyways you are correct about the RCC, except my wife is ex-RCC.
Having spent 7 years in the Lutheran Church and becoming well acquainted with the Book of Concord as well as Melanchthon, Chemnitz, and Johann Gerhard (as well as Gerhardt), I'd say that you are sadly mistaken.
As far as the Anglican Church goes I was content with any congregation using the 1923 Book of Common Prayer.

 

[Albion]

Anyways you are correct about the RCC, except my wife is ex-RCC.

Having spent 7 years in the Lutheran Church and becoming well acquainted with the Book of Concord as well as Melanchthon, Chemnitz, and Johann Gerhard (as well as Gerhardt), I'd say that you are sadly mistaken.
As far as the Anglican Church goes I was content with any congregation using the 1923 Book of Common Prayer.

Yeh, most of us have belonged to a variety of different churches. Beyond that, there's nothing in your post that changes anything that's already been presented.

 

[Josiah]

Yes but Isaiah 53 does say He carried the sins of many. Wonder if He was a sacrifice for everyone, yet only carried the sins of those who would be justified. How can He carry the sins of someone who doesn't let Him carry their sins? That's just like what I thought a while ago, that the old man of everyone died with Him on the cross. It didn't, because Hitler's old nature still exists. If he had repented in time, it would have died with Christ and Jesus would have carried his sins and done them away. And someone in that other post says the elect were justified with Him 2000 years ago, which Peter does say. So maybe only in retrospect when you come to faith or something or because He knows the future.

@Messy


1. Respectfully, I think you are "over-thinking" this. The Bible very, very clearly states that Jesus died for all. And for 1600 years, all Christians believed that (and that VAST majority still do); there's simply no reason to deny or question this.

2. Some force way too much into "many." The "many" Scriptures either speak not of His death but rather what those with faith are apprehending/relying upon OR simply stress the great number (kinda hard to fit that with the "L's" stress on ONLY A FEW - maybe 1% to 20% max). "There are many people on the Earth" does not prove that not all people live on the Earth. "Many" does not equal "not all." It probably DOES imply not "only a few" (the "L" invention).

3. There are TWO things essential for personal justification (as the Bible so often states): The Savior/Cross/Atoning Work PLUS ALSO faith that apprehends/applies/trusts/relies on that. BOTH are needed. There is no justification without those TWO things - the Cross without faith does not lead to personal justification (the reason some are not saved), faith without the Cross does not save (the reason the "L" is such a "terror of the conscience"). The Cross + Faith.

Keeping the above points clearly in mind.....

This might help: I think where some get confused is the question of results or effectualness. Of course, the Cross without faith is not effectual for anyone; there IS a sense in which it was FOR THEM "in vain" because it doesn't benefit THEM (due to the lack of faith), but that doesn't mean the Bible is wrong in insisting that Jesus DID die for them, only that the Bible is right when it states that faith ALSO is neccessary.

This might help: In classic theology, there is talk of "OBJECTIVE JUSTIFICATION" and "SUBJECTIVE JUSTIFICATION." There IS a sense in which Christ's death accomplished justification for all people, a sense in which we CAN say "I was justified 2000 years ago at the Cross and Empty Tomb." The Bible and ECF speak that way; the ransom for all WAS made. Like if I buy a life insurance policy for my son... it's THERE, it's real. Paid for, reserved, his. That's OBJECTIVE justification. It's real, it's THERE. Subjective justification is when it is APPLIED to the person, when my son cashes in the policy. Faith apprehends this, applies this, trusts this, uses this - it becomes subjective. I think this distinction helps - but it also can be confusing. There is a sense in which the life insurance policy I bought IS real, IS there, EXISTS from the moment I paid for it - and it is my sons. BUT it's not benefiting him until he trusts/relies/apprehends it, cashes it in. There IS justification for my Buddhist friend (Objective) but he does not have justification (subjective) until he comes to faith - and when he does, that justification he just apprehended has been there since that first Easter. Make sense? Yeah, the Bible seems to speak like that.



Back to the issue:

The "L" invention of a few radical, latter-day Calvinists is that Jesus did NOT die for all but rather ONLY, exclusively, solely for SOME (estimates range from 1% to maybe as high as 20%).


Here's what God literally, flat-out, verbatim, in black-and-white, repeatedly states:

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.

There are NO verses that state, "No, Jesus did not die for all but only for some."

The reason some are not personally justified is NOT that the Bible is wrong about Jesus dying for all but rather because the Bible is right about faith not being in all.



A blessed Holy Week to you and yours.


- Josiah



.

 

[prism]

Yeh, most of us have belonged to a variety of different churches. Beyond that, there's nothing in your post that changes anything that's already been presented.

No, just as their is nothing in your posts to change your smugness in pronouncing to another that I wasn't acquainted with those other Bodies... but it is revealing.

 

[Messy]

He died for all, but bore the sins of many.

Whose Sins Did Christ Bear?

On the question of whose sins did Christ bear - the sins of everyone or just those who believe?

judev3.co.uk

Hebrews 9:28 ►

Context Crossref Comment Greek Verse (Click for Chapter) New International Version so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; English Standard Version so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many,

 

[Josiah]

He died for all, but bore the sins of many.

Whose Sins Did Christ Bear?

On the question of whose sins did Christ bear - the sins of everyone or just those who believe?

judev3.co.uk

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

The distinction this article attempts is entirely contrived. Death is the punishing for sins, if He died for you He bore the sins of you.

WAY too much is being pumped into the word "many." "Many people live on the Earth" does not mean "Only a few people live on the Earth, most don't." "Many" usually means "lots" rather than "not all."



.

 

[Messy]

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

The distinction this article attempts is entirely contrived. Death is the punishing for sins, if He died for you He bore the sins of you.

WAY too much is being pumped into the word "many." "Many people live on the Earth" does not mean "Only a few people live on the Earth, most don't." "Many" usually means "lots" rather than "not all."

He has some good points.

Bear sins is just the same as take away sins. He became a curse and sin for everyone, but He could not take away the sin from ppl who don't believe and don't want His offer.
Just like the snake on the pole. It was for all the Israelites, but only benefited the ones who looked on it.

This is at the end of the link:
Consider an example: A man is in serious debt and his creditor is threatening to take him to court unless immediate payment is made. His best friend, learning of the matter, goes to the creditor and pays the debt in full and then tells his friend that the debt has been paid to the satisfaction of the creditor. However, the man who was in debt refuses to believe that he is no longer in debt. Can the creditor still rightly take him to court? No! the debt has been paid. Does the man's unbelief in any way affect the matter? No! The debt has been paid whether he believes it or not. Hence how can God judge men if Christ has born the sins of all? How can God send men to Hell if Christ has born their sins? If Christ bore the sins of all, then where is the need for faith? It is made redundant, and our preaching is vain. (see 1 Cor.15: 14)

 

[Messy]

The Hebrew word means “to lift up,” “to carry,” and “to take away.” It is tied to forgiveness because it is as if He carries the sins out of sight.

https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Topical.show/RTD/cgg/ID/21034/Jesus-Bore-Away-Sins-Many.htm

 

[Albion]

Thinking of the article we were linked to, what's the likelihood of one person, on his own, coming up with the 'correct' and 'oh-so-simple' meaning of several words of Scripture that somehow fooled the mass of theologians and linguists that studied the same material during the course of 2000 years of Church history?

 

[Messy]

Thinking of the article we were linked to, what's the likelihood of one person, on his own, coming up with the 'correct' and 'oh-so-simple' meaning of several words of Scripture that somehow fooled the mass of theologians and linguists that studied the same material during the course of 2000 years of Church history?

At least he says something about it. It was hard to find anything. Limited atonement is not Biblical, but I think they have a point with these texts about many. It makes no sense to me that Jesus would bear the grief and sins of pharao or Goliath and there is not 1 text that says that and what use would it be? First kill his first born son, then so many thousand years later bear his grief? How? I don't think he made heaven, so he bears his own grief and his sin stays. He sinned against the Spirit. Only in combination with sin bearing it says many instead of the whole world. The word nasa has 5 meanings or something.

 

[Josiah]

Limited atonement is not Biblical

Then, friend, I'm sincerely at a complete loss why you keep trying to defend it.

I think they have a point with these texts about many.

No, they don't. It is simply not true - in Greek or English - that the word "many" means "not all but only some few." That's just not what the word means. "There are many people living on Earth" does not mean that most people don't live on Earth, much less only some few of them do (perhaps 1% to as much as many 20% of people live on Earth). "Many" probably DOES conflict with the "L" dogma of only some unknown few but it does not with the "all" that the Bible says, which you agree is the biblical position.

It makes no sense to me that Jesus would bear the grief and sins of pharao or Goliath

No disrespect whatsoever, but love doesn't always make sense. And theology doesn't have to make sense to fallen, sinful,, people who simply don't know everything. To me, what is good is to accept what God says. And what does He say? That Christ died for all... for everyone... for all people. God says that over and over again. Verbatim. Flat-out. It is more clear than the two natures of Christ or the Trinity or the inspiration of Scripture. Now, whether it "Makes sense" or not..... well, so what? Love does lots of things that don't "make sense." The Trinity doesn't "make sense" Subjecting what God SO often, SO clearly, VERBATIM says to what "makes sense" to ME seems like a very dangerous way to do theology....




.

 

[Albion]

At least he says something about it. It was hard to find anything.

Hard to find anything about whom Christ died for? Really?

It makes no sense to me that Jesus would bear the grief and sins of pharao or Goliath and there is not 1 text that says that and what use would it be?

He died for all. There are all sorts of verses that testify to this.

And how much sense would it make for God to engage in such a unique and monumental act as Him becoming one of his own creatures...only so that he could testify to having already selected a certain few of them for eternal life?

 

[Messy]

Hard to find anything about whom Christ died for? Really?

He died for all. There are all sorts of verses that testify to this.

And how much sense would it make for God to engage in such a unique and monumental act as Him becoming one of his own creatures...only so that he could testify to having already selected a certain few of them for eternal life?

No it's hard to find someone who notices a difference between dying and being an atonement for the whole word on one hand, yet explains why He bore sins is said in combination with many. Is it coincidental that not the whole world or everyone is used when it says He bore our sins? If not, it can explain why it says many and not everyone. Because He did die for everyone, but could not remove everyone's sins. He can only remove them when you accept His offer in faith. In Micah it says only from the remnant.

Micah 7:18

7:18 Who is a God like unto thee, that pardoneth iniquity, and passeth by the transgression of the remnant of his heritage? he retaineth not his anger for ever, because he delighteth in mercy.

7:19 He will turn again, he will have compassion upon us; he will subdue our iniquities; and thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea.

https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Topical.show/RTD/cgg/ID/21034/Jesus-Bore-Away-Sins-Many.htm:

Scripture also describes the Messiah's “bearing” of transgression as acceptance, forgiveness, and pardon (Job 42:8-9; Psalm 25:18; 28:9; 32:1, 5; 85:2; Micah 7:18). The Hebrew word means “to lift up,” “to carry,” and “to take away.” It is tied to forgiveness because it is as if He carries the sins out of sight. While the Bible also uses it to refer to what men do—such as “carry” (Genesis 47:30) and “forgive” (Genesis 50:17)—it is never used to refer to Satan.

Christ's bearing of sins goes beyond paying the penalty, fitting perfectly with one of the meanings of azazel, “complete removal” (compare Psalm 103:12). In Isaiah 53:12, the bearing is linked with intercession. They are not the same thing, but the parallelism indicates that an active work occurs in carrying the sins until they are completely removed from view, figuratively “as far as the east is from the west.”

We see the same thing in the New Testament. I Peter 2:24 says Jesus “Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree.” Not only did He bear the sins, but He did it by Himself, just as the azazel did (Leviticus 16:22). He did not share that role. The author writes in Hebrews 9:28, “Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many.” His single and singular sacrifice both cleansed the sanctuary and bore away the sins of many

 

[brightfame52]

No it's hard to find someone who notices a difference between dying and being an atonement for the whole word on one hand, yet explains why He bore sins is said in combination with many. Is it coincidental that not the whole world or everyone is used when it says He bore our sins? If not, it can explain why it says many and not everyone. Because He did die for everyone, but could not remove everyone's sins. He can only remove them when you accept His offer in faith. In Micah it says only from the remnant.

Micah 7:18

7:18 Who is a God like unto thee, that pardoneth iniquity, and passeth by the transgression of the remnant of his heritage? he retaineth not his anger for ever, because he delighteth in mercy.

7:19 He will turn again, he will have compassion upon us; he will subdue our iniquities; and thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea.

https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Topical.show/RTD/cgg/ID/21034/Jesus-Bore-Away-Sins-Many.htm:

Scripture also describes the Messiah's “bearing” of transgression as acceptance, forgiveness, and pardon (Job 42:8-9; Psalm 25:18; 28:9; 32:1, 5; 85:2; Micah 7:18). The Hebrew word means “to lift up,” “to carry,” and “to take away.” It is tied to forgiveness because it is as if He carries the sins out of sight. While the Bible also uses it to refer to what men do—such as “carry” (Genesis 47:30) and “forgive” (Genesis 50:17)—it is never used to refer to Satan.

Christ's bearing of sins goes beyond paying the penalty, fitting perfectly with one of the meanings of azazel, “complete removal” (compare Psalm 103:12). In Isaiah 53:12, the bearing is linked with intercession. They are not the same thing, but the parallelism indicates that an active work occurs in carrying the sins until they are completely removed from view, figuratively “as far as the east is from the west.”

We see the same thing in the New Testament. I Peter 2:24 says Jesus “Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree.” Not only did He bear the sins, but He did it by Himself, just as the azazel did (Leviticus 16:22). He did not share that role. The author writes in Hebrews 9:28, “Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many.” His single and singular sacrifice both cleansed the sanctuary and bore away the sins of many

Notice Micah 7:18 the mercy and forgiveness is only for a specified remnant, not all, see its limited !

 

[Albion]

No it's hard to find someone who notices a difference between dying and being an atonement for the whole word on one hand, yet explains why He bore sins is said in combination with many.

Oh, I'm sure there are some. Such as most of the Christian world and most of the Christian churches.

Remember that the other side of the issue is actually an extreme theory as well as being relatively new in church history.

But that aside, I'm interested in what you wrote about the logic of the matter (leaving aside the fact that logic isn't what decides it). At one time, I thought that for Christ to die for some only, or for God to have predestined his Elect, etc. was a comforting thought, and that's because it put the whole confusing matter of how to be saved, and so forth, into God's hands, not mine.

BUT the Bible really does not support that POV, which I think the discussion here has shown, AND the idea of God's unique and astoundingly important willingness (Incarnation, Crucifixion, etc.) to humble himself in order to get mankind back on track after the fall of Adam and Eve--something that has no parallel in any of the other of the world's great religious systems--actually makes much more sense of the Gospels.

Is it coincidental that not the whole world or everyone is used when it says He bore our sins?

I don't see anything critical in that wording.

If not, it can explain why it says many and not everyone.

But there are plenty of places in Scripture where language that clearly means everybody is the language that's used. There have been innumerable posts put up here on CH that quote them.

He did die for everyone, but could not remove everyone's sins.
He can only remove them when you accept His offer in faith.

I don't think there's anything logical about that. In fact, it makes God be weaker than we are.

Love is stronger than obstinance or negativism. If you offer a precious, fabulous gift to someone and then he or she doesn't want it, is that a failing on your part? I wouldn't say so.

And a good argument can be made IMHO for God being admirable, fair-minded, patient, or the like, when he doesn't FORCE the mortal in one way or the other, whether that's to accept him or to ignore him and decline his love.

After all, what we're discussing is mankind's "second chance," the first being God creating Adam and Eve to have a perfect life, if only they respected God's instructions about one little matter. (They didn't). So, in that light, it makes sense to me that the Atonement effected by Christ would be offered in the same way.

 

[Josiah]

Notice Micah 7:18 the mercy and forgiveness is only for a specified remnant, not all, see its limited !

@brightfame52



Where does it state, "Jesus died ONLY for some few?" Read the verse: 7:18 Who is a God like unto thee, that pardoneth iniquity, and passeth by the transgression of the remnant of his heritage? he retaineth not his anger for ever, because he delighteth in mercy."

Nothing about Jesus NOT dying for all (as the Bible repeatedly, verbatim, flat-out, literally states) but rather ONLY for some few.

This verse does suggest that only some are justified, but since TWO things are needed for justification - the Cross and Faith - this verse simply affirms so many others that indicate that not all have faith.

This verse does not support the "L" of TULIP, that Jesus did not die for all BUT rather ONLY, exclusively, solely, for some few. At most, it affirms so many other verses that indicate that not all are justified (which requires BOTH the Cross and faith).


Here's what God literally, flat-out, verbatim, in black-and-white, repeatedly states:

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.

There are NO verses that state, "No, Jesus did not die for all but only for some."

The reason some are not personally justified is NOT that the Bible is wrong about Jesus dying for all but rather because the Bible is right about faith not being in all.



A blessed Holy Week to you and yours.


- Josiah



.

 

[Albion]

I've noticed that "L" people and defenders of the idea that Christ died only for the few choose verses from the Old Testament in order to bolster their case, while those who advocate for the idea that Christ died in order to give the whole of mankind the possibility of eternal life, usually quote from the New Testament.

The issue is this: while the OT is God's word, it deals with the situation of men at that time in history, which is to say, before the atoning work of the Savior. Many other verses could be cited from the OT which refer to the conditions at that time but which God, at the appropriate time later on saw fit to lift.

There is no denying that there is a progression described in the Bible, from Adam to the ancient Hebrews and the giving of the Law, to the coming of the Savior and the establishment of Christ's church, its mission to the whole world, and so on.

 

[prism]

Seems to me, this issue is fairly a moot one as even though the Scriptures say 'all' in some places Jesus' death is limited to those who believe; and who are those who believe? Those to whom the Son reveals His Father to.

Matthew 11:27 NKJV
All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.

And no man comes to the Father except through Jesus...

John 14:6 NKJV
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

When taking Scriptures as a whole, it becomes clear that at least the benefits of the atonement are limited.
Who did Jesus intend to save perhaps is the better question?

Romans 8:28-30 NKJV
And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. [29] For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. [30] Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.