Calvinism Vs Arminian

[Andrew]

If Jesus died for all, atoned for all sins, then the ONLY conclusion is that ALL are saved.
Any addition of "but" or "if" makes the atonement limited.
This is a fact.
But, [MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION] utterly rejects fact.

In this world, the world that God so loves, Jesus took the sting of death for every person alive, they have a lifetime to repent and accept the atonement, if they reject they have to be held responsible for their own sins after death where they will be judged and found guilty and be given the second and final death.
They willingly reject the atonement and Gods will that they should not perish, instead they will themselves to be permanent unbelievers and purchase their own lot with their own death in themselves, unfortunately that lot is called hades and the lake of fire as they were deceived by the devil in thinking that they can become like gods in their own right.

 

[MennoSota]

Although off topic, my position is that of Scripture and the Reformation: Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide. God loves all, Christ died for all, the divine gift of faith apprehends/trusts/relies/receives that.


Now, back to the issue:

My position: Jesus died for all.
"L": Jesus died for only, exclusively, solely, just a limited few.

I'll go with the one the Bible teaches. There's MANY that VERBATIM state Jesus died for all. You can't find even one that says He only died for a few (and thus, likely, odds are, not you)







Only if you abandon Scripture and denounce Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide. Your neglect if faith is exactly what lead so many hyper-Calvinists to invent Universalism. The insistence to delete the divine gift of faith, to regard faith as irrelevant and necessary, is truly strange but common in Calvinism.


Now, do you have a verse that says "Jesus died only (THAT'S the issue of the "L" in TULIP) for the church?" Because many of us here at CH have presented MANY, MANY Scriptures that verbatim state that Christ died for all. Now, they don't say ERGO all are saved regardless of faith, but that's a view that came out of Calvinism.




A former Calvinist on this issue: https://www.scribd.com/document/102...lvinist-Arguments-Against-Universal-Atonement






.

Josiah, since you claim Jesus died for all...did he atone for all their sins?
You are extremely evasive on this. In the past you have said, yes...but. Is that still your position.
Be a good person and answer the question. Your foolish rhetoric is just wasted typing.

 

[MennoSota]

I had to place the two posts next to each other so that I could be sure that you really wrote what you did after reading what was said in my post. It's an amazing case of theological myopathy or maybe theological blindness. Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures; and he was buried; and he rose again on the third day, according to the Scriptures; so Catholics preach, and so the faithful have believed.

And the scriptures say Jesus died as my substitute.
Isaiah 53
He was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us*all"

Hebrews 9:11-28
But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God. Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant. For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established. For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive. Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood. For when every commandment of the law had been declared by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, “This is the blood of the covenant that God commanded for you.” And in the same way he sprinkled with the blood both the tent and all the vessels used in worship. Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.
Mark 10:45
For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Colossians 2:13-15
And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.

John 15:13
Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends.

 

[MennoSota]

In this world, the world that God so loves, Jesus took the sting of death for every person alive, they have a lifetime to repent and accept the atonement, if they reject they have to be held responsible for their own sins after death where they will be judged and found guilty and be given the second and final death.
They willingly reject the atonement and Gods will that they should not perish, instead they will themselves to be permanent unbelievers and purchase their own lot with their own death in themselves, unfortunately that lot is called hades and the lake of fire as they were deceived by the devil in thinking that they can become like gods in their own right.

They could willingly reject God without Jesus ever having to die.
What did Jesus sacrificial death actually accomplish?
Were the sins of the entire world made clean by Jesus sacrifice, or were the sins of only those who believe made clean by Jesus sacrifice.
If you say everyone, then all humanity is made clean. No buts or ifs added. All are made clean. Unlimited is what it actually accomplished.
If you say "everyone, but" or "everyone if", then you limit his sacrifice. For some it actually accomplishes atonement. For the rest...it had the potential, but human will took the energy right out of it and made Jesus blood of no actual benefit.
I say that Jesus sacrifice is actually for all whom God gave to him. No but or if. Every drop of blood atoned for the sins of those whom God has adopted. His children are paid for by God the Son's sacrificial atonement. All Jesus blood is effective. It's potential is fulfilled. Every drop.

 

[Josiah]

Josiah, since you claim Jesus died for all...did he atone for all their sins?

The issue is this:

My position: Jesus died for all
Your position: Jesus died for only, exclusively, solely, just a limited few.



You asking questions isn't substantiation for anything other than your ability to ask a question (it's far from unique)
You asking questions isn't apologetics AT ALL, for anything. It's just confirming that you too can ask a question.
Your constant, perpetual shell game is very, very tiring.
Quote the verse that states Jesus died for ONLY a few.


Now, as I and others have said.... over and over and over and over and over and over.... since you came to this site.... the Protestant and biblical position is Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide. I realize you follow the frequent hyper-Calvinist position of regarding faith as entirely irrelevant (why some of them invented Universalism), but biblical Christianity does not. Yes, Jesus died for all. Does that mean all are justified? Nope. Why? Because not all have. No, God doesn't "take back" anything. No, we don't choose anything. No, we don't have to "prove" anything. No, nothing needs to be "evident." No, the quality of faith doesn't matter. What matters is the OBJECT of faith.

I have been crystal clear, since you came here. MANY of us have. And you just ignore it. NO. N.O. NO! NO WAY is there justification apart from the divine gift of faith, as I've told you dozens and dozens if not hundreds of times. Universalism is an outgrowth of hyper-Calvinism, NOT biblical Christianity. I'm not a universalist who persistently neglects the issue of faith (you are the one who does that, quite often).

My position: Jesus died for all.
Your position: Jesus died for only, exclusively, solely, just for a limited few.
Your position IS the "L" of TULIP as so many esteemed Calvinists have stated and as you yourself verbatim stated.


Now, if you want to change the topic to who is and is not justified (it would be improper to do that here, hijacking is not permittted) then my position is what you clearly reject: Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide. Where the divine gift of faith in Christ is present, justification (initial, narrow) is present. The issue is not whether one is on a non-disclosed long list of the majority of people for whom Jesus didn't die (and odds are, that's you), the issue is faith. Some lack faith in Christ as their Savior and thus aren't justified. That's NOT in any sense synergistic because NOTHING is the work of the dead. That's NOT Arminianist because the dead choose nothing. That's not Pelagian because no one cooperates in this. But nor is it a God who calls all to faith but who makes such irrelevant because for most, that faith has NOTHING real for them to apprehend, just a ghost, just emptiness, a trick.... Here's just part of the horror, the nightmare of your view: You my have faith in Christ as your savior but Jesus likely is not YOUR savior. In biblical Christianity, where there is faith in Christ as Savior, there IS justification because Jesus has this to offer to all. But we are WAY off topic.



The issue is this: Did Jesus die for all as the Bible so often, flat-out, literally, verbatim states.... and as 2000 years of Christianity affirms... and as every Calvinist personally known to be upholds, OR did Jesus die only, exclusively, solely, just for a limited few as the "L" of TULIP dogmatically insists but no hyper-Calvinists in 400+ years can find a single verse that remotely says?






.

 

[MoreCoffee]

And the scriptures say Jesus died as my substitute.

Well, no they do not. No scripture says that Jesus died as your substitute. Many passages in holy scripture say that Christ died for the benefit of those who believe in him.

 

[MennoSota]

The issue is this:

My position: Jesus died for all
Your position: Jesus died for only, exclusively, solely, just a limited few.



You asking questions isn't substantiation for anything other than your ability to ask a question (it's far from unique)
You asking questions isn't apologetics AT ALL, for anything. It's just confirming that you too can ask a question.
Your constant, perpetual shell game is very, very tiring.
Quote the verse that states Jesus died for ONLY a few.


Now, as I and others have said.... over and over and over and over and over and over.... since you came to this site.... the Protestant and biblical position is Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide. I realize you follow the frequent hyper-Calvinist position of regarding faith as entirely irrelevant (why some of them invented Universalism), but biblical Christianity does not. Yes, Jesus died for all. Does that mean all are justified? Nope. Why? Because not all have. No, God doesn't "take back" anything. No, we don't choose anything. No, we don't have to "prove" anything. No, nothing needs to be "evident." No, the quality of faith doesn't matter. What matters is the OBJECT of faith.

I have been crystal clear, since you came here. MANY of us have. And you just ignore it. NO. N.O. NO! NO WAY is there justification apart from the divine gift of faith, as I've told you dozens and dozens if not hundreds of times. Universalism is an outgrowth of hyper-Calvinism, NOT biblical Christianity. I'm not a universalist who persistently neglects the issue of faith (you are the one who does that, quite often).

My position: Jesus died for all.
Your position: Jesus died for only, exclusively, solely, just for a limited few.
Your position IS the "L" of TULIP as so many esteemed Calvinists have stated and as you yourself verbatim stated.


Now, if you want to change the topic to who is and is not justified (it would be improper to do that here, hijacking is not permittted) then my position is what you clearly reject: Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide. Where the divine gift of faith in Christ is present, justification (initial, narrow) is present. The issue is not whether one is on a non-disclosed long list of the majority of people for whom Jesus didn't die (and odds are, that's you), the issue is faith. Some lack faith in Christ as their Savior and thus aren't justified. That's NOT in any sense synergistic because NOTHING is the work of the dead. That's NOT Arminianist because the dead choose nothing. That's not Pelagian because no one cooperates in this. But nor is it a God who calls all to faith but who makes such irrelevant because for most, that faith has NOTHING real for them to apprehend, just a ghost, just emptiness, a trick.... Here's just part of the horror, the nightmare of your view: You my have faith in Christ as your savior but Jesus likely is not YOUR savior. In biblical Christianity, where there is faith in Christ as Savior, there IS justification because Jesus has this to offer to all. But we are WAY off topic.



The issue is this: Did Jesus die for all as the Bible so often, flat-out, literally, verbatim states.... and as 2000 years of Christianity affirms... and as every Calvinist personally known to be upholds, OR did Jesus die only, exclusively, solely, just for a limited few as the "L" of TULIP dogmatically insists but no hyper-Calvinists in 400+ years can find a single verse that remotely says?






.

Stop evading. Answer the question.

Josiah, since you claim Jesus died for all...did he atone for all their sins?

This is a yes or no answer.
Stop evading.

Since you claim Jesus died for all, did he also atone for all sins?

 

[MennoSota]

Well, no they do not. No scripture says that Jesus died as your substitute. Many passages in holy scripture say that Christ died for the benefit of those who believe in him.

MC, they do. I provided them. You rejected them. It's that simple.

 

[Josiah]

Stop evading. Answer the question.

Off topic .... evasive... part of your constant shell game.... reflective that you think if you can ask a question ERGO your position is right...

But nonetheless, I have answered this question SO MANY times I fear I'm breaking the rules, including in what you quoted from me but obviously didn't read.


Stop the evasion, the shell game, stop this SILLINESS of insisting that you asking a question ERGO substantiates your position as true.


The issue of the "L" in hyper-Calvinism's TULIP is this: Did Jesus die for all as the Bible so often, flat-out, literally, verbatim states.... and as 2000 years of Christianity affirms... and as every Calvinist personally known to be upholds, OR did Jesus die only, exclusively, solely, just for a limited few as the "L" of TULIP dogmatically insists but no hyper-Calvinists in 400+ years can find a single verse that remotely says? Everything else is just a shell game, anything to avoid substantiating this late 16th Century invention of a tiny few latter-day hyper-Calvinists.



Illustrations....


Okay.... one more time.... purely wasting my time because it is OBVIOUS you don't read what is posted and don't consider it if you do.... and since you think questions are apologetics (how silly).....

Let's say someone gives you round trip plane tickets to Hawaii (paid for them in full) and GIVES them to you but you never use them, do you thus end up in Hawaii? Does the fact that you don't go to Hawaii prove that actually your friend handed you fake tickets, playing a cruel joke on you? Does it mean he ran into the airport and ripped the tickets out of your hand just before you boarded the plane? Or does it mean you never applied them to you?

Let's say a friend gives you a gift card to Starbucks. And you never use it. Does that prove that there MUST be Starbucks coffee running down into your stomach? Does it prove that the card given to you was a fake, a fraud, a sick joke because it was never paid for? Does it prove that at the last moment, as you were handing the card to the nice girl at the cash register, the giver ran into the store and ripped the card out of your hand and shouted, "I'm an indian giver? Or does it mean you didn't benefit because you never apprehended/trusted/relied/embraced (faith) the card?

Now, no shell game... Don't shift gears into whether the giver gave that faith to you or not, it doesn't change the point - only supplies the reason for why you USED what was REAL.




Ignoring Scripture.... ignoring 2000 years of history... your theology depends on some supposed "logic" that is in reality entirely illogical and just plain silly. It all depends on ONE THING: eliminating faith. So that if the friend gives you those plane tickets he paid for, you instantly appear in Hawaii - regardless of anything. Friend, your "logic" is why so many hyper-Calvinists ended up in universalism, because faith is irrelavent. The Protestant and biblical doctrine is this: Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide. You've simply abandoned all that. Is Christ's incarnation, sacrifice and resurrection sufficient for the salvation of all, just as the Bible so often says? Yes. Does it ERGO benefit all? No. Why? Because there is a factor your entirely theology depends on ignoring: the divine gift of faith. Your theology has this horrible, nightmare basis: You may have faith in Christ as your Savior but odds are, He's not YOUR savior. You ignore that Scripture calls us to faith, not for Jesus to stop neglecting YOU. No, there's no conflict with Election, because the election applies to the individual and thus to faith. God gives faith to those individuals who are elect. And those who have faith in Christ therefore have justification because it's THERE for them and for all. But we are WAY off topic. You NEED to constantly shift topics to get it off your dogma of Jesus died for ONLY a few (and thus, odds are, not you). But yes, I have address it. Many here have. Over and over and over and over and over and over.



The "L" of TULIP is this: Jesus died for only, exclusively, solely, just a limited few. Your constant, perpetual evasion and shell game only discloses you have nothing to substantiate it as true. And your constant point that if you can answer a question, ERGO you are right about Jesus dying for only a few is pure nonsense and not apologetics AT ALL (besides, we all know you can ask a question). You are overturning MANY, MANY verbatim Scriptures and 2000 years of Christianity and a key point of the Gospel.... and revealing you have NOTHING to substantiate it as true. Friend, there's a reason this invention has been rejected by most Calvinists and certainly by all other Christians.





.

 

[MennoSota]

Off topic .... evasive... part of your constant shell game.... reflective that you think if you can ask a question ERGO your position is right...

But nonetheless, I have answered this question SO MANY times I fear I'm breaking the rules, including in what you quoted from me but obviously didn't read.


Stop the evasion, the shell game, stop this SILLINESS of insisting that you asking a question ERGO substantiates your position as true.


The issue of the "L" in hyper-Calvinism's TULIP is this: Did Jesus die for all as the Bible so often, flat-out, literally, verbatim states.... and as 2000 years of Christianity affirms... and as every Calvinist personally known to be upholds, OR did Jesus die only, exclusively, solely, just for a limited few as the "L" of TULIP dogmatically insists but no hyper-Calvinists in 400+ years can find a single verse that remotely says? Everything else is just a shell game, anything to avoid substantiating this late 16th Century invention of a tiny few latter-day hyper-Calvinists.



Illustrations....


Okay.... one more time.... purely wasting my time because it is OBVIOUS you don't read what is posted and don't consider it if you do.... and since you think questions are apologetics (how silly).....

Let's say someone gives you round trip plane tickets to Hawaii (paid for them in full) and GIVES them to you but you never use them, do you thus end up in Hawaii? Does the fact that you don't go to Hawaii prove that actually your friend handed you fake tickets, playing a cruel joke on you? Does it mean he ran into the airport and ripped the tickets out of your hand just before you boarded the plane? Or does it mean you never applied them to you?

Let's say a friend gives you a gift card to Starbucks. And you never use it. Does that prove that there MUST be Starbucks coffee running down into your stomach? Does it prove that the card given to you was a fake, a fraud, a sick joke because it was never paid for? Does it prove that at the last moment, as you were handing the card to the nice girl at the cash register, the giver ran into the store and ripped the card out of your hand and shouted, "I'm an indian giver? Or does it mean you didn't benefit because you never apprehended/trusted/relied/embraced (faith) the card?

Now, no shell game... Don't shift gears into whether the giver gave that faith to you or not, it doesn't change the point - only supplies the reason for why you USED what was REAL.




Ignoring Scripture.... ignoring 2000 years of history... your theology depends on some supposed "logic" that is in reality entirely illogical and just plain silly. It all depends on ONE THING: eliminating faith. So that if the friend gives you those plane tickets he paid for, you instantly appear in Hawaii - regardless of anything. Friend, your "logic" is why so many hyper-Calvinists ended up in universalism, because faith is irrelavent. The Protestant and biblical doctrine is this: Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide. You've simply abandoned all that. Is Christ's incarnation, sacrifice and resurrection sufficient for the salvation of all, just as the Bible so often says? Yes. Does it ERGO benefit all? No. Why? Because there is a factor your entirely theology depends on ignoring: the divine gift of faith. Your theology has this horrible, nightmare basis: You may have faith in Christ as your Savior but odds are, He's not YOUR savior. You ignore that Scripture calls us to faith, not for Jesus to stop neglecting YOU. No, there's no conflict with Election, because the election applies to the individual and thus to faith. God gives faith to those individuals who are elect. And those who have faith in Christ therefore have justification because it's THERE for them and for all. But we are WAY off topic. You NEED to constantly shift topics to get it off your dogma of Jesus died for ONLY a few (and thus, odds are, not you). But yes, I have address it. Many here have. Over and over and over and over and over and over.



The "L" of TULIP is this: Jesus died for only, exclusively, solely, just a limited few. Your constant, perpetual evasion and shell game only discloses you have nothing to substantiate it as true. And your constant point that if you can answer a question, ERGO you are right about Jesus dying for only a few is pure nonsense and not apologetics AT ALL (besides, we all know you can ask a question). You are overturning MANY, MANY verbatim Scriptures and 2000 years of Christianity and a key point of the Gospel.... and revealing you have NOTHING to substantiate it as true. Friend, there's a reason this invention has been rejected by most Calvinists and certainly by all other Christians.





.

Evasion. My question is on topic. Quit being scared to answer.

Since you claim Jesus died for all, did he also atone for all sins?

 

[Josiah]

Off topic .... evasive... part of your constant shell game.... reflective that you think if you can ask a question ERGO your position is right...

But nonetheless, I have answered this question SO MANY times I fear I'm breaking the rules, including in what you quoted from me but obviously didn't read.


Stop the evasion, the shell game, stop this SILLINESS of insisting that you asking a question ERGO substantiates your position as true.


The issue of the "L" in hyper-Calvinism's TULIP is this and only this: Did Jesus die for all as the Bible so often, flat-out, literally, verbatim states.... and as 2000 years of Christianity affirms... and as every Calvinist personally known to be upholds, OR did Jesus die only, exclusively, solely, just for a limited few as the "L" of TULIP dogmatically insists but no hyper-Calvinists in 400+ years can find a single verse that remotely says? Everything else is just a shell game, anything to avoid substantiating this late 16th Century invention of a tiny few latter-day hyper-Calvinists.




Illustrations....


Okay.... one more time.... purely wasting my time because it is OBVIOUS you don't read what is posted and don't consider it if you do.... and since you think questions are apologetics (how silly).....

Let's say someone gives you round trip plane tickets to Hawaii (paid for them in full) and GIVES them to you but you never use them, do you thus end up in Hawaii? Does the fact that you don't go to Hawaii prove that actually your friend handed you fake tickets, playing a cruel joke on you? Does it mean he ran into the airport and ripped the tickets out of your hand just before you boarded the plane? Or does it mean you never applied them to you?

Let's say a friend gives you a gift card to Starbucks. And you never use it. Does that prove that there MUST be Starbucks coffee running down into your stomach? Does it prove that the card given to you was a fake, a fraud, a sick joke because it was never paid for? Does it prove that at the last moment, as you were handing the card to the nice girl at the cash register, the giver ran into the store and ripped the card out of your hand and shouted, "I'm an indian giver? Or does it mean you didn't benefit because you never apprehended/trusted/relied/embraced (faith) the card?

Now, no shell game... Don't shift gears into whether the giver gave that faith to you or not, it doesn't change the point - only supplies the reason for why you USED what was REAL.




Ignoring Scripture.... ignoring 2000 years of history... your theology depends on some supposed "logic" that is in reality entirely illogical and just plain silly. It all depends on ONE THING: eliminating faith. So that if the friend gives you those plane tickets he paid for, you instantly appear in Hawaii - regardless of anything. Friend, your "logic" is why so many hyper-Calvinists ended up in universalism, because faith is irrelavent. The Protestant and biblical doctrine is this: Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide. You've simply abandoned all that. Is Christ's incarnation, sacrifice and resurrection sufficient for the salvation of all, just as the Bible so often says? Yes. Does it ERGO benefit all? No. Why? Because there is a factor your entirely theology depends on ignoring: the divine gift of faith. Your theology has this horrible, nightmare basis: You may have faith in Christ as your Savior but odds are, He's not YOUR savior. You ignore that Scripture calls us to faith, not for Jesus to stop neglecting YOU. No, there's no conflict with Election, because the election applies to the individual and thus to faith. God gives faith to those individuals who are elect. And those who have faith in Christ therefore have justification because it's THERE for them and for all. But we are WAY off topic. You NEED to constantly shift topics to get it off your dogma of Jesus died for ONLY a few (and thus, odds are, not you). But yes, I have address it. Many here have. Over and over and over and over and over and over.



The "L" of TULIP is this: Jesus died for only, exclusively, solely, just a limited few. Your constant, perpetual evasion and shell game only discloses you have nothing to substantiate it as true. And your constant point that if you can answer a question, ERGO you are right about Jesus dying for only a few is pure nonsense and not apologetics AT ALL (besides, we all know you can ask a question). You are overturning MANY, MANY verbatim Scriptures and 2000 years of Christianity and a key point of the Gospel.... and revealing you have NOTHING to substantiate it as true. Friend, there's a reason this invention has been rejected by most Calvinists and certainly by all other Christians.

.

My question is on topic. Since you claim Jesus died for all, did he also atone for all sins?

Already answered over and over and over and over. For months. Including what you quoted from me. Pasting it yet again is no indication you will read it or consider it if you did.

Your ability to ask questions is not substantiation for anything and its' not apologetics at all. We all know that.

Yes, Jesus died for all. That is what is meant by Jesus died for all. Is it possible for you to stay on the topic?
Yes, Jesus died for only, exclusively, solely, just for a limited few means just that. That's YOUR position. Is it possible for you to stay on topic?
Stop the shell game and diversions.
Stop trying to impress others by your ability to ask questions about other issues.


Yes, Jesus's work was not a joke. Does that mean that ERGO all are justified irregardless of faith? No. If you have a problem with that, take that to your hyper-Calvinist friends who invented universalism, those who like you hold that faith is irrelevant and has no role in anything, those who hold the object of faith is entirely irrelevant.



YES! Jesus died for ALL. I agree, Jesus dying for all means that He died for all. It IS exactly, verbatim, often what the Bible says. It is what all but a very few hyper-Calvinists for the past 400 or so years have said. And yes, it means He died for all.

I know you insist that is unbiblical, illogical, heretical, synergistic and Arminianistic - although you've not said how so. All you do is CONSTANTLY change the topic, show you know how to ask questions, falsely accuse others of absurd nonsense you just make up with your "logic" that if another is wrong about anything you must be right about this thing.


Now does that mean any implication of that it is applied to every person? No. That would be silly. Unlike you and many other hyper-Calvinists, I do not eliminate faith, I do not regard faith as irrelevant. It is faith that apprehends what is REAL, what IS. It's not Jesus that is limited, its us. It's not Jesus' death that is not for all, it's faith that is not for all.


Now, stop the evasions, the dodging, the shell gave: The issue is this - Did Jesus die for all as the Bible so often and verbatim says OR is the "L" of TULIP right, this dogma a few hyper-Calvinists invented in the late 16th Century correct and Jesus died ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY, JUST for a limited few? THAT is the issue of the "L." THAT is exactly how you yourself defined it. THAT is exactly what esteemed Calvinists have defined it. Now, give up the Bible verse that states that.


Someday, you might address the issue and provide the substantiation for this radical new invention of a FEW latter-day hyper-Calvinists that nearly all Calvinists reject, this dogma that is absolutely contradicted verbatim by so many Scriptures... this horror that means that in Christ as your Savior is worthless because it's likely Christ isn't YOUR Savior.





.

 

[MennoSota]

Already answered over and over and over and over. For months. Including what you quoted from me. Pasting it yet again is no indication you will read it or consider it if you did.

Your ability to ask questions is not substantiation for anything and its' not apologetics at all. We all know that.

Yes, Jesus died for all. That is what is meant by Jesus died for all. Is it possible for you to stay on the topic?
Yes, Jesus died for only, exclusively, solely, just for a limited few means just that. That's YOUR position. Is it possible for you to stay on topic?
Stop the shell game and diversions.
Stop trying to impress others by your ability to ask questions about other issues.


Yes, Jesus's work was not a joke. Does that mean that ERGO all are justified irregardless of faith? No. If you have a problem with that, take that to your hyper-Calvinist friends who invented universalism, those who like you hold that faith is irrelevant and has no role in anything, those who hold the object of faith is entirely irrelevant.



YES! Jesus died for ALL. I agree, Jesus dying for all means that He died for all. It IS exactly, verbatim, often what the Bible says. It is what all but a very few hyper-Calvinists for the past 400 or so years have said. And yes, it means He died for all.

I know you insist that is unbiblical, illogical, heretical, synergistic and Arminianistic - although you've not said how so. All you do is CONSTANTLY change the topic, show you know how to ask questions, falsely accuse others of absurd nonsense you just make up with your "logic" that if another is wrong about anything you must be right about this thing.


Now does that mean any implication of that it is applied to every person? No. That would be silly. Unlike you and many other hyper-Calvinists, I do not eliminate faith, I do not regard faith as irrelevant. It is faith that apprehends what is REAL, what IS. It's not Jesus that is limited, its us. It's not Jesus' death that is not for all, it's faith that is not for all.


Now, stop the evasions, the dodging, the shell gave: The issue is this - Did Jesus die for all as the Bible so often and verbatim says OR is the "L" of TULIP right, this dogma a few hyper-Calvinists invented in the late 16th Century correct and Jesus died ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY, JUST for a limited few? THAT is the issue of the "L." THAT is exactly how you yourself defined it. THAT is exactly what esteemed Calvinists have defined it. Now, give up the Bible verse that states that.


Someday, you might address the issue and provide the substantiation for this radical new invention of a FEW latter-day hyper-Calvinists that nearly all Calvinists reject, this dogma that is absolutely contradicted verbatim by so many Scriptures... this horror that means that in Christ as your Savior is worthless because it's likely Christ isn't YOUR Savior.





.

No you haven't. You have always avoided the answer, which can be either yes or no.

Answer the question:

If, as you claim, Jesus died for everyone, is everyone's sins atoned for?

The "L" in TULIP stands for "limited atonement" so my question is right on topic.

Josiah, I can feel you quaking in your boots as you think about how you will avoid the question. Quit running away from the question.

Question: If, as you claim, Jesus died for everyone, is everyone's sins atoned for?

 

[Josiah]

No you haven't. You have always avoided the answer, which can be either yes or no.

Answered very, very often. For months. Yes, there is justification because Christ died for the sins of the world AND where there is faith, that is apprehended to the individual. You like to side tract into this other matter but we get nowhere because you do as hyper-Calvinists tend to do, regard faith as irrelevant (which is why hyper-Calvinism gave birth to universalism).

If, as you claim, Jesus died for everyone, is everyone's sins atoned for?

A side issue, but I've answered it again and again and again and again.... given Scriptures... used a plethora of illustrations... but because you, like most hyper-Calvinists, reject any notion of faith, you reject it. It's not that it hasn't been answered - by many, very often - it's just you discount faith having any role and thus don't like the answer.

No. I'm not a universalist. That comes out of hyper-Calvinism, that is a result of your theology that disregards faith. Yes, what Jesus did creates something REAL - not a cruel joke, not a fake, not a fraud, not a ghost but ACTUAL and REAL. Does it mean universalism? No, because unlike in hyper-Calvinism, faith is not irrlevant, faith is essential, faith is what apprehends/relies/trusts/embraces the REALITY and thus it applies to that individual.


MY position: Jesus died for all. TRY to address the issue.
YOUR position: Jesus died for only, exclusively, solely, just a limited FEW. Try to address the issue.

I have a long, long list of Scriptures that verbatim echo my position - as well as 2000 years of Christianity.
You so far have not offered even one verse that says what you do.

The "L" in TULIP

... is that Jesus died for only a few.

It doesn't stand for Limited Faith or Limited Benefit, it is that Jesus died for only a few. EXACTLY as YOU YOURSELF repeatedly defined it. Just as respected Calvinists and Calvinist websites define it, as I documented.



You insist that there are two and only two options
1) Jesus died for only a few and 2) universalism
BOTH are wrong.
Indeed, both are flat-out contradicted by many verbatim Scriptures.
Both are wrong for the identical same reason, both discount faith.

Your silly, illogical insistence that those are the only two options because faith is worthless is a false premise, you are TRYING to force all into one of those two unbiblical positions. I reject them both, equally, for the same reasons: Both are contrary to many verbatim Scriptures and 2000 years of Christianity and both disregard any role of faith (the first is also a horrible nightmare that means NO ONE can know if they are justified).

I hold to the biblical and Protestant position: Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide.





.




.

 

[MennoSota]

Answered very, very often. For months. Yes, there is justification because Christ died for the sins of the world AND where there is faith, that is apprehended to the individual. You like to side tract into this other matter but we get nowhere because you do as hyper-Calvinists tend to do, regard faith as irrelevant (which is why hyper-Calvinism gave birth to universalism).






A side issue, but I've answered it again and again and again and again.... given Scriptures... used a plethora of illustrations... but because you, like most hyper-Calvinists, reject any notion of faith, you reject it. It's not that it hasn't been answered - by many, very often - it's just you discount faith having any role and thus don't like the answer.

No. I'm not a universalist. That comes out of hyper-Calvinism, that is a result of your theology that disregards faith. Yes, what Jesus did creates something REAL - not a cruel joke, not a fake, not a fraud, not a ghost but ACTUAL and REAL. Does it mean universalism? No, because unlike in hyper-Calvinism, faith is not irrlevant, faith is essential, faith is what apprehends/relies/trusts/embraces the REALITY and thus it applies to that individual.


MY position: Jesus died for all. TRY to address the issue.
YOUR position: Jesus died for only, exclusively, solely, just a limited FEW. Try to address the issue.

I have a long, long list of Scriptures that verbatim echo my position - as well as 2000 years of Christianity.
You so far have not offered even one verse that says what you do.





... is that Jesus died for only a few.

It doesn't stand for Limited Faith or Limited Benefit, it is that Jesus died for only a few. EXACTLY as YOU YOURSELF repeatedly defined it. Just as respected Calvinists and Calvinist websites define it, as I documented.



You insist that there are two and only two options
1) Jesus died for only a few and 2) universalism
BOTH are wrong.
Indeed, both are flat-out contradicted by many verbatim Scriptures.
Both are wrong for the identical same reason, both discount faith.

Your silly, illogical insistence that those are the only two options because faith is worthless is a false premise, you are TRYING to force all into one of those two unbiblical positions. I reject them both, equally, for the same reasons: Both are contrary to many verbatim Scriptures and 2000 years of Christianity and both disregard any role of faith (the first is also a horrible nightmare that means NO ONE can know if they are justified).

I hold to the biblical and Protestant position: Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide.





.




.

You didn't answer the question. You said, "Yes, there is justification." That is not the question.

You say that Jesus died for everyone.

Question: Did Jesus atone for everyone's sins when he died for everyone?

Please stop running around the question. Just answer it.

 

[Josiah]

You say that Jesus died for everyone.

Question: Did Jesus atone for everyone's sins when he died for everyone?

Again, yet again, one more time (although it is in vain posting anything to you on this)... yes, what Jesus did is not a fake, not a fraud, not a phantom, not a ghost, not a cruel joke. Yes, His sacrifice is sufficient for all the sins of the world AND THEREFORE MINE. Does that mean everyone is saved, justified? No. Because biblical Christianity does not disregard faith. Again, yet again, still one more time: I repudiate universalism because I repudiate that faith is meaningless, irrelevant, and has no role in justification.

Again, you are working under a false, illogical and silly premise, created because you are eliminating faith from anything and everything. You FORCE all into two and only two camps: 1) Jesus died for only, exclusively, solely, just a limited few OR 2) Universalism. Well, friend, those aren't the only two options. They MIGHT be under your theology that eliminates faith and rejects Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide, I realize that (SO clear why universalism was born out of your theology). YES, Jesus' blood is sufficient. NO, therefore not all are justified. Why? Because what justifies is not ONLY Christ's death BUT ALSO faith that apprehends that. Your premise that there are only two options - both repudiating faith - is wrong. You are simply trapped in it.


But you continue to evade the issue, constantly, always, prepetually playing the shell game.... ANYTHING to avoid THE ISSUE. The "L" of TULIP (as you yourself correctly stated) is that Jesus died for only, exclusively, solely, just a LIMITED few. Give the Scriptures that support this. The position of all the rest of Christians (including nearly all Calvinists) is that Jesus died for all. We have given the many, many clear, verbatim Scriptures that state EXACTLY that. That is the issue. That is the debate.


No. I will not answer your question by eliminating faith from justification. And you will accept no answer that embraces the divine gift of faith as having any role in justification. SO easy to see how your theology lead some hyper-Calvinists to invent universalism... so easy to see all those Universalist churches in New England that once were hyper-Calvinists.


.

 

[MennoSota]

Again, yet again, one more time (although it is in vain posting anything to you on this)... yes, what Jesus did is not a fake, not a fraud, not a phantom, not a ghost, not a cruel joke. Yes, His sacrifice is sufficient for all the sins of the world AND THEREFORE MINE. Does that mean everyone is saved, justified? No. Because biblical Christianity does not disregard faith. Again, yet again, still one more time: I repudiate universalism because I repudiate that faith is meaningless, irrelevant, and has no role in justification.

Again, you are working under a false, illogical and silly premise, created because you are eliminating faith from anything and everything. You FORCE all into two and only two camps: 1) Jesus died for only, exclusively, solely, just a limited few OR 2) Universalism. Well, friend, those aren't the only two options. They MIGHT be under your theology that eliminates faith and rejects Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide, I realize that (SO clear why universalism was born out of your theology). YES, Jesus' blood is sufficient. NO, therefore not all are justified. Why? Because what justifies is not ONLY Christ's death BUT ALSO faith that apprehends that. Your premise that there are only two options - both repudiating faith - is wrong. You are simply trapped in it.


But you continue to evade the issue, constantly, always, prepetually playing the shell game.... ANYTHING to avoid THE ISSUE. The "L" of TULIP (as you yourself correctly stated) is that Jesus died for only, exclusively, solely, just a LIMITED few. Give the Scriptures that support this. The position of all the rest of Christians (including nearly all Calvinists) is that Jesus died for all. We have given the many, many clear, verbatim Scriptures that state EXACTLY that. That is the issue. That is the debate.


No. I will not answer your question by eliminating faith from justification. And you will accept no answer that embraces the divine gift of faith as having any role in justification. SO easy to see how your theology lead some hyper-Calvinists to invent universalism... so easy to see all those Universalist churches in New England that once were hyper-Calvinists.


.

Your refusal to answer a simple question is noted. I will once again put you on ignore since you are clearly unwilling to answer my question. And...everyone knows why you refuse to answer.

 

[Josiah]

Correct. I refuse to give any answer concerning justification that disregards faith. And that's all you as a hyper-Calvinist will permit.

 

[Andrew]

Yes. Christ successfully completed the Will of his Father by dying for the 'Sin of the World', the Father wills that none perish, he was resurrected and ascended therefore it was a successful atonement for all of his sheep, the goats are called goats because they are the rejectors of the faith and will take it to their grave where they will have to 'accept' their 'fate' in being held entirely accountable for their sin unto death, they are independent from Gods sheep and will not reign with Christ on Earth nor with God in Heaven.
God protects his sheep.
This does 'not' mean that we should 'not' preach to everyone in the world, we should treat them all with the same approach, like you said Menno, there is no E (for Elect) tattoo on their skin, God will mark their foreheads and will not be known to us, be good to those who hate you, love your enemies and spread the Gospel to all and leave no sheep behind.

 

[MennoSota]

Yes. Christ successfully completed the Will of his Father by dying for the 'Sin of the World',

And thus all humanity is saved.

the Father wills that none perish,

And thus all humanity is saved.

he was resurrected and ascended therefore it was a successful atonement for all of his sheep,

And thus you declare that Jesus sacrificial atonement failed for all the goats

the goats are called goats because they are the rejectors of the faith and will take it to their grave

Matthew 25 does not say what you claim, however. Re-read Matthew 25.

where they will have to 'accept' their 'fate'

Wait, What!? They were fated to unbelief? Did you misspeak? Because you directly contradict yourself with this statement.

in being held entirely accountable for their sin unto death, they are independent from Gods sheep

We are all entirely accountable for our sin. What makes them different from the sheep? They did not independently separate themselves from the sheep. God separated them, saying they were under the curse. Again, read Matthew 25.

and will not reign with Christ on Earth nor with God in Heaven.
God protects his sheep.

God chooses the sheep. Read Matthew 25.

This does 'not' mean that we should 'not' preach to everyone in the world, we should treat them all with the same approach, like you said Menno, there is no E (for Elect) tattoo on their skin,

We agree.

God will mark their foreheads and will not be known to us,

Wait, God limits whom He will choose by marking them? Why do you say differently at the top?

be good to those who hate you, love your enemies and spread the Gospel to all and leave no sheep behind.

Accept everyone, but only approve of what God approves.
God has placed me at a job where I work with many progressive people. Many are homosexuals and transgendered. I accept each one and count many as friends. I do not approve of everything they do and they do not approve of everything I do. God may have some earmarked for salvation. I am ready to point them toward Christ by planting the seed in love.

 

[Andrew]

And thus all humanity is saved.


And thus all humanity is saved.


And thus you declare that Jesus sacrificial atonement failed for all the goats

Matthew 25 does not say what you claim, however. Re-read Matthew 25.


Wait, What!? They were fated to unbelief? Did you misspeak? Because you directly contradict yourself with this statement.

We are all entirely accountable for our sin. What makes them different from the sheep? They did not independently separate themselves from the sheep. God separated them, saying they were under the curse. Again, read Matthew 25.

God chooses the sheep. Read Matthew 25.


We agree.


Wait, God limits whom He will choose by marking them? Why do you say differently at the top?


Accept everyone, but only approve of what God approves.
God has placed me at a job where I work with many progressive people. Many are homosexuals and transgendered. I accept each one and count many as friends. I do not approve of everything they do and they do not approve of everything I do. God may have some earmarked for salvation. I am ready to point them toward Christ by planting the seed in love.

lol ok well now you are just arguing because we agree and God forbid that a non Calvinists can understand that God chooses his sheep and rejects the goats, I don't believe that the goats he rejects are saved (that would be an oxymoron).. No one here ever said that 'Christ died for the people of the world'.. I said Sin, the 'Sin' of this world. What is 'sin' to a non believer? If we believe we can convert/save a goat then they were never a goat, they were a lost sheep.
There is a song I am reminded of titled "Sheep go to heaven, goats go to hell"

We can see the symbolism here can't we menno? Am I a literal sheep that goes "baaaaaaaaaaaah"? No, it is symbolic to the sheep that goes toward the shepard when he calls, the ones that get away find themselves lost among wolves in sheeps clothing, the shepard will leave the herd to find that lost sheep.
You blot out the symbolism and replace it with TULIP, we (non calvinists) prefer the symbolic biblical explanation instead of lawyer language. No offense