Christ Gave Himself Up Only For the Church

[MennoSota]

For Josiah:
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.*

Indeed, from the whole world, Jesus chooses to give reconciliation. John writes of Jesus Christ being "the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only (Hebrews), but also for the whole world (the Gentiles)."

Isaiah 53:4-6
4Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted.

5But 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.
6All 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.

Notice to whom Isaiah is writing. He is writing to the elect. Therefore, in verse 6, the "all" is all the elect.

Luke 19:10
9And Jesus said to him,*“Today salvation has come to this house, since*he also is a son of Abraham.*10For*the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.”

I added verse 9 so that readers can see that Jesus is choosing to give salvation to the "son of Abraham," meaning those of the promise whom God gives the gift of faith.

2 Corinthians 5:14-15
14For the love of Christ*controls us, because we have concluded this: that*one has died for all, therefore all have died;*15and he died for all,*that those who live might no longer live for themselves but*for him who for their sake died and was raised.

Who is the "us" in verse 14? It is the elect. Christ died for all the elect. Jesus died for the elect. Josiah, this verse proves you wrong.

Hebrews 2:9
9But 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.

Who is "we" in this verse? It is the elect, the chosen people of God. Jesus tasted death for everyone of the elect.

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

It is so great to know that Jesus doesn't just die for Israel. He dies for the elect throughout the world from every tribe and tongue.

Josiah, if he took away the sin of the entire, universal, world then no one would go to hell. You either embrace universalism in this verse or you are left with your conundrum...or you realize "the world" refers to the elect from every tribe and tongue throughout the world.

1 John 4:14
13By this we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit.*14And*we have seen and testify that*the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of*the world.*15Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God.*16So*we have come to know and to believe the love that God has for us.*God is love, and*whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.

Context is important here. When looking at the whole we realize that, once again, John is speaking to the elect. He uses the word "we" which indicates the elect audience he's addressing, but he goes further to explain that throughout the world there will be chosen people who receive the Spirit of God and confess Jesus as Lord.

John 4:42
39Many Samaritans*from that town believed in him*because of*the woman’s testimony, “He told me all that I ever did.”*40So when the Samaritans came to him, they asked him to stay with them, and he stayed there two days.*41And many more believed*because of his word.*42They said to the woman, “It is no longer because of what you said that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves,*and we know that this is indeed*the Savior*of the world.”

Again, context is key. These are Samaritans whom the Jews considered outcasts. They recognize that Jesus is providing a hope of salvation that is not just for the Jews, but is for every tribe and tongue.
God's message goes out to the world. The elect receive it and believe.

Josiah, all the verses you seem to be so confident in imagining universal atonement are actually excellent verses for particular atonement.
You are refuted. I now expect you to go "but, but, but...they don't say ONLY." So silly of you to demand that word...

 

[pinacled]

Josiah, you keep parroting the false narrative that I didn't address the verses you posted and explain how they do not teach universal atonement.
Second, you utterly refuse to acknowledge your deep conundrum, which is: If Jesus atonement is universal and Jesus gives the gift of faith, why then did he purchase all humanity from their sins (universal atonement), yet he only gifts faith to a very small minority?
Why does Jesus make his atonement ineffective for the majority of humanity, Josiah?
Please, only answer the last question, Josiah. Don't ignore it and do your stupid cut and paste bogus response. Answer the question, Josiah!
Why does Jesus make his atonement ineffective for the majority of humanity, Josiah?

for fear of consequences threatened.
josiah is very likely afraid to admit that there is a deceiver\false prophet whom the beast uses to tempt people to swear an oath of fealty.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

You dont have the slightest clue of the Amount of suffering ive endured in this life youngin.

I'm not a youngin

Just because i do not speak of personal matters.
You have no right to Tell me what i have or have not experienced

And you've no right to misapply something very serious.

DO U UNDERSTAND

Do you? Feel free to send me a PM and we can discuss this

 

[pinacled]

I'm not a youngin



And you've no right to misapply something very serious.



Do you? Feel free to send me a PM and we can discuss this

No thankyou,

I will take my leave now and walk in a strength of forgiveness while i dust my feet off.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

No thankyou,

I will take my leave now and walk in a strength of forgiveness while i dust my feet off.

God bless.

 

[pinacled]

God bless.

Bless the King Yeshua

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Bless the King Yeshua

At all times and in all places

 

[pinacled]

Jesus atoning sacrifice was only for the elect who make up the church.

Reading in Ephesians 5:
25Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and*gave himself up for her,*26that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by*the washing of water*with the word,*27so*that he might present the church to himself in splendor,*without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.

We see that Jesus gave himself up for the church, not for the whole world. Jesus gave himself up for the church so that he might sanctify (set apart) the church and present the church as being without blemish.
Jesus did not give himself for the world (universal) as some people attempt to convey from John 3:16...even though John 3 teaches God's election of those who would believe.

I believe your assessment has been answered.


universal salvation doctrine is a cup of demons.

 

[Josiah]

For Josiah:
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.


Indeed, from the whole world, Jesus chooses to give reconciliation. John writes of Jesus Christ being "the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only (Hebrews), but also for the whole world (the Gentiles)."

RADICAL eisegesis.... there is no "FROM." You just inserted that so as to reverse what the Holy Spirit actually stated.

RADICAL eisegesis.... there is no "HEBREW" or "GENTILE." You just inserted that so as to reverse what the Holy Spirit actually stated.

Isaiah 53:4-6
4Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted.

5But 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.
6All 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.

Notice to whom Isaiah is writing. He is writing to the elect. Therefore, in verse 6, the "all" is all the elect.

RADICAL eisegesis.... there is no "ONLY THE ELECT." You just inserted that so as to reverse what the Holy Spirit actually stated.

And friend, no one here denies that Jesus died for the elect or the church or Calvinists or tall people or skinny people.... no one here has remotely denied ANYTHING in ANY of the verses you bring... not a word.... we all accept every single word in them. But where's your dogma? Where does it say "ONLY?"

Here is your silly, absurd, illogical apologetic: If something is true in a case, your absurd, illogical point is that it ergo is mandated to not be true in any other... so if I posted I love my son, your entire apologetic is that ERGO I don't love my wife. All can see how profoundly illogical your whole premise is (but you).

2 Corinthians 5:14-15
14For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died;15and he died for all,that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.

Who is the "us" in verse 14? It is the elect. Christ died for all the elect. Jesus died for the elect.

Josiah, this verse proves you wrong.

Again, no one here denies that Christ died for the elect. But you keep dodging the point: It says ALL (not "exclusively the elect") and it does NOT say "ONLY."

In this verse "all" cannot mean "exclusively, solely the elect" because his point is that all "die." Do only the elect die?

No one here denies that Jesus died for the elect or the church or Calvinists or tall people or skinny people.... no one here has remotely denied ANYTHING in ANY of the verses you bring... not a word.... we all accept every single word in them. But where's your dogma? Where does it say "ONLY?"

Here is your silly, absurd, illogical apologetic: If a something is true in a case, it ergo is mandated to not be true in any other... so if I posted I love my son, your entire apologetic is that ERGO I don't love my wife. All can see how profoundly illogical your whole premise is (but you).

Hebrews 2:9
9But 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.

Who is "we" in this verse? It is the elect, the chosen people of God. Jesus tasted death for everyone of the elect.

RADICAL eisegesis.... there is no "ONLY THE ELECT." You just inserted that so as to reverse what the Holy Spirit actually stated.

"Everyone (of the elect)?" Made me laugh out loud. How silly your apologetic is.

And the "we" here refers not to the ones for whom he died but the believers. The part you just chose to ignore is FOR WHOM he died. What does it say? "ONLY the elect, JUST the church?" Or does it say "everyone?"

And friend, no one here denies that Jesus died for the elect or the church or Calvinists or tall people or skinny people.... no one here has remotely denied ANYTHING in ANY of the verses you bring... not a word.... we all accept every single word in them. But where's your dogma? Where does it say "ONLY?"

Here is your silly, absurd, illogical apologetic: If a something is true in a case, it ergo is mandated to not be true in any other... so if I posted I love my son, your entire apologetic is that ERGO I don't love my wife. All can see how profoundly illogical your whole premise is (but you).

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

It is so great to know that Jesus doesn't just die for Israel. He dies for the elect throughout the world from every tribe and tongue.

RADICAL eisegesis.... there is no "ISRAEL" "TRIBE" "TONGUE." You just inserted that so as to reverse what the Holy Spirit actually stated.

RADICAL eisegesis.... there is no "FROM THE"

All can see how you just insert words to make the verse say the exact opposite of what the Holy Spirit said.

John 4:42
" we know that this is indeed the Savior of the world.”


These are Samaritans whom the Jews considered outcasts. They recognize that Jesus is providing a hope of salvation that is not just for the Jews, but is for every tribe and tongue.

RADICAL eisegesis. Again, you just boldly delete the word the Holy Spirit said and insert different ones so that it's made to say the exact opposite.

The elect receive it and believe.

Please stop the constant shell game.

Who believes and who does not is not the issue.

The issue is the dogma that Christ died ONLY for the elect, JUST for the church. You have yet to produce any verse that remotely says that, and you have to entirely reverse all the Scriptures that flat out contradict your dogma. As we all clearly see.




.

 

[Josiah]

universal salvation doctrine is a cup of demons.

NO ONE here remotely teaches but we all passionately reject universal salvation. Please don't substitute that invention of Calvinism into THIS discussion. They aren't remotely related.


NO ONE here agrees that if Christ died for all, ERGO all are saved. Nope, there's the issue of faith. But that's a whole other issue, another topic for another day and thread. Please don't derail THIS discussion.

This thread is about the invention of a FEW later-day hyper-Calvinists made it dogma that Christ died ONLY for the few, JUST the elect, no others, as MennoSota correctly noted.



Back to the subject...



.

 

[pinacled]

NO ONE here remotely teaches but we all passionately reject universal salvation. Please don't substitute that invention of Calvinism into THIS discussion.

This thread is NOT whether all are saved, it's whether Christ died ONLY for the few, the elect, the church, a (never disclosed) short list of a minority of people. Universal ATONEMENT is not at all the same thing as universal salvation.... universal salvation is an idea that came out of Calvinism and today the VAST majority of Calvinists join with every other christian in denouncing that, as is also the case with Limited Atonment.


Back to the subject...



.

You are directly contending The Truth of the matter of what mennas has stated in the op.

Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. 19 You believe that there is one God. Good!
Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

Are you attempting to say that the demons are offered salvation.?
That demons are atoned for..
That it is ok to drink from the cup of demons and The Holy One of Yisrayl.
By your actions here in this very thread ive seen quite a few post from yourself that insist this very thing.
Are you tempting others to claim there is No unforgivable sin?

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!


Your very words will condemn you josiah.


You have not admitted that the mark of the beast seals people to destruction..
And your silence on the matter likewise has been enough of an answer as far as i can see.

 

[MennoSota]

RADICAL eisegesis.... there is no "FROM." You just inserted that so as to reverse what the Holy Spirit actually stated.

RADICAL eisegesis.... there is no "HEBREW" or "GENTILE." You just inserted that so as to reverse what the Holy Spirit actually stated.







RADICAL eisegesis.... there is no "ONLY THE ELECT." You just inserted that so as to reverse what the Holy Spirit actually stated.

And friend, no one here denies that Jesus died for the elect or the church or Calvinists or tall people or skinny people.... no one here has remotely denied ANYTHING in ANY of the verses you bring... not a word.... we all accept every single word in them. But where's your dogma? Where does it say "ONLY?"

Here is your silly, absurd, illogical apologetic: If something is true in a case, your absurd, illogical point is that it ergo is mandated to not be true in any other... so if I posted I love my son, your entire apologetic is that ERGO I don't love my wife. All can see how profoundly illogical your whole premise is (but you).






Again, no one here denies that Christ died for the elect. But you keep dodging the point: It says ALL (not "exclusively the elect") and it does NOT say "ONLY."

In this verse "all" cannot mean "exclusively, solely the elect" because his point is that all "die." Do only the elect die?

No one here denies that Jesus died for the elect or the church or Calvinists or tall people or skinny people.... no one here has remotely denied ANYTHING in ANY of the verses you bring... not a word.... we all accept every single word in them. But where's your dogma? Where does it say "ONLY?"

Here is your silly, absurd, illogical apologetic: If a something is true in a case, it ergo is mandated to not be true in any other... so if I posted I love my son, your entire apologetic is that ERGO I don't love my wife. All can see how profoundly illogical your whole premise is (but you).







RADICAL eisegesis.... there is no "ONLY THE ELECT." You just inserted that so as to reverse what the Holy Spirit actually stated.

"Everyone (of the elect)?" Made me laugh out loud. How silly your apologetic is.

And the "we" here refers not to the ones for whom he died but the believers. The part you just chose to ignore is FOR WHOM he died. What does it say? "ONLY the elect, JUST the church?" Or does it say "everyone?"

And friend, no one here denies that Jesus died for the elect or the church or Calvinists or tall people or skinny people.... no one here has remotely denied ANYTHING in ANY of the verses you bring... not a word.... we all accept every single word in them. But where's your dogma? Where does it say "ONLY?"

Here is your silly, absurd, illogical apologetic: If a something is true in a case, it ergo is mandated to not be true in any other... so if I posted I love my son, your entire apologetic is that ERGO I don't love my wife. All can see how profoundly illogical your whole premise is (but you).







RADICAL eisegesis.... there is no "ISRAEL" "TRIBE" "TONGUE." You just inserted that so as to reverse what the Holy Spirit actually stated.

RADICAL eisegesis.... there is no "FROM THE"

All can see how you just insert words to make the verse say the exact opposite of what the Holy Spirit said.








RADICAL eisegesis. Again, you just boldly delete the word the Holy Spirit said and insert different ones so that it's made to say the exact opposite.







Please stop the constant shell game.

Who believes and who does not is not the issue.

The issue is the dogma that Christ died ONLY for the elect, JUST for the church. You have yet to produce any verse that remotely says that, and you have to entirely reverse all the Scriptures that flat out contradict your dogma. As we all clearly see.




.

No, not radical eisegesis, Josiah. This is Reformed theology.
What is radical is to teach that the entire world is saved by Jesus atonement, yet...not saved because lack of faith trumps the atonement of Christ.
THAT is your radical teaching, Josiah. You cannot even see how demeaning your teaching is to the sacrificial death of Christ Jesus. You make his death ineffectual for all humanity...except those humans who generate their own faith.
Your teaching is a slap it the face of the Savior.

 

[MennoSota]

NO ONE here remotely teaches but we all passionately reject universal salvation. Please don't substitute that invention of Calvinism into THIS discussion. They aren't remotely related.


NO ONE here agrees that if Christ died for all, ERGO all are saved. Nope, there's the issue of faith. But that's a whole other issue, another topic for another day and thread. Please don't derail THIS discussion.

This thread is about the invention of a FEW later-day hyper-Calvinists made it dogma that Christ died ONLY for the few, JUST the elect, no others, as MennoSota correctly noted.



Back to the subject...



.

Pinacle, Josiah is clueless as to the disrespect he shows for Jesus atonement. He teaches that Jesus atoned for all, but the atonement failed for most...because human will is more powerful than Jesus sacrifice.

 

[pinacled]

Pinacle, Josiah is clueless as to the disrespect he shows for Jesus atonement. He teaches that Jesus atoned for all, but the atonement failed for most...because human will is more powerful than Jesus sacrifice.

I noticed something a little more concerning than a mere miscommunication.

Josiahs refusal to admit an answer to a single question shows intention whether or not they realize.

 

[Josiah]

Your very words will condemn you josiah.

... a very, very strong statement.

WHAT specifically have I (and virtually all but MennoSota) said on this topic "condemns" us? ALL I've done is share a lot of Scriptures that say the opposite of Christ dying ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, JUST for the elect. And (with many others) have noted that our good friend hasn't presented any Scripture that states that Jesus died ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY, JUST for the church. What is specifically 'condemnable" there?

You have not admitted that the mark of the beast seals people to destruction

ENTIRELY unrelated to this topic. We are not to hijack threads at CH. This thread is not about who is and is not saved. This thread is not why some are saved and some not. This thread is not about destruction or beasts or seals. It's about what the title says it is: Christ dying ONLY for the elect, the church - and no others.


Back to the topic.



.

 

[Josiah]

What is radical is to teach that the entire world is saved by Jesus atonement

No one here has said that.

Universalism is an outgrowth of Calvinism.... a position related to your position, not mine. All over the Eastern USA are Univeral Unitarian Associations that once were hyper-Calvinists churches.

It's frustrating that you constantly, perpetually play "the shell game".... constantly changing the subject... anything to dodge your dogma. We're discussing one thing, the thing you asked us to discuss, the dogma invented by a few latter-day hyper-Calvinists, that Jesus died ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY, JUST for the elect, the few.

It's obvious you have no verse that remotely says that, or you obviously would have supplied it in these 36 pages of posts.

You have proven that you must entirely reverse what MANY Scriptures CLEARLY state in some of the most radical, extreme eisegesis ever witnessed to get them to say the exact opposite of what they do.

...except those humans who generate their own faith.

Two things debaters do when they hold an empty hand.... change the subject ("the shell gave") and name calling (trying to discredit the other).

Friend, EVERYONE HERE know how absurd it is, how laughable it is, to insist that MY position is that everyone freely choose faith for themselves. You are just combining changing the subject (this thread is not about how faith comes about) with absurd name calling ("YOU free-will Arminists Baptist!!")

The issue is as you said: Whether Christ died ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY, JUST for the elect, the church, the few. Not how faith comes about... not if all are saved.... not any of the rabbit holes you perpetually substitute. And no, you are not excused from substantiation just because you LAUGHABLY charge someone else with being a free-will Arminianist. Someone else being wrong does not make you right.





.

 

[pinacled]

ENTIRELY unrelated to this topic. We are not to hijack threads at CH. This thread is not about who is and is not saved. This thread is not why some are saved and some not. This thread is not about destruction or beasts or seals. It's about what the title says it is: Christ dying ONLY for the elect, the church - and no others.






.

Your failure to admit That the Lord died solely for His Own is precisely what this topic is about.

what are you afraid of josiah? ;Cant admit that the mark of the beast seals people to destruction out of Fear of those who kill the flesh.

 

[MennoSota]

No one here has said that.

Universalism is an outgrowth of Calvinism.... a position related to your position, not mine. All over the Eastern USA are Univeral Unitarian Associations that once were hyper-Calvinists churches.

It's frustrating that you constantly, perpetually play "the shell game".... constantly changing the subject... anything to dodge your dogma. We're discussing one thing, the thing you asked us to discuss, the dogma invented by a few latter-day hyper-Calvinists, that Jesus died ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY, JUST for the elect, the few.

It's obvious you have no verse that remotely says that, or you obviously would have supplied it in these 36 pages of posts.

You have proven that you must entirely reverse what MANY Scriptures CLEARLY state in some of the most radical, extreme eisegesis ever witnessed to get them to say the exact opposite of what they do.







Two things debaters do when they hold an empty hand.... change the subject ("the shell gave") and name calling (trying to discredit the other).

Friend, EVERYONE HERE know how absurd it is, how laughable it is, to insist that MY position is that everyone freely choose faith for themselves. You are just combining changing the subject (this thread is not about how faith comes about) with absurd name calling ("YOU free-will Arminists Baptist!!")

The issue is as you said: Whether Christ died ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY, JUST for the elect, the church, the few. Not how faith comes about... not if all are saved.... not any of the rabbit holes you perpetually substitute. And no, you are not excused from substantiation just because you LAUGHABLY charge someone else with being a free-will Arminianist. Someone else being wrong does not make you right.





.

Josiah, please be honest with yourself.
You claim universal atonement. You used scripture to say that all the world is atoned for.
But...and it's a HUGE but...
...only the faithful are actually saved.
We agree that only the faithful can be saved.
Our difference is that, for me, all the blood of Jesus was spilt effectually in salvation. For you, most of Jesus blood was spilt in vain and the sacrifice was ineffectual.
This is the core of our difference.
You cannot, indeed will not, see how you weaken the sacrifice of Christ to utter meaninglessness for the majority of humanity.
For you, Christ atoned for all, but failed to save all.
For me, Christ atoned for all the elect and saved every single one the Father had given him.
That's the difference. Everyone reading this thread can see where we differ. Everyone can see that I have answered your verses. Everyone can see that you hide behind the word "only" as your crutch.

 

[pinacled]

Josiah, please be honest with yourself.
You claim universal atonement. You used scripture to say that all the world is atoned for.
But...and it's a HUGE but...
...only the faithful are actually saved.
We agree that only the faithful can be saved.
Our difference is that, for me, all the blood of Jesus was spilt effectually in salvation. For you, most of Jesus blood was spilt in vain and the sacrifice was ineffectual.
This is the core of our difference.
You cannot, indeed will not, see how you weaken the sacrifice of Christ to utter meaninglessness for the majority of humanity.
For you, Christ atoned for all, but failed to save all.
For me, Christ atoned for all the elect and saved every single one the Father had given him.
That's the difference. Everyone reading this thread can see where we differ. Everyone can see that I have answered your verses. Everyone can see that you hide behind the word "only" as your crutch.

Leave it be mennas,
josiah made a choice not to admit that there is a mark of the beast. revealing intent as much as need be here.

For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.

18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.

21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.”

 

[Josiah]

You claim universal atonement. You used scripture to say that all the world is atoned for.

Yes. Jesus died for all. Just as the Bible SO often says, if we just read and believe what it says... not deleting what it says then inserting what it does NOT say so as to turn it 180 degrees opposite.

No. That doesn't result in everyone being saved because there is another factor, faith. While the work of Christ is for all, not all embrace it. I suppose you have the ability to ask "why?" but that doesn't mean anyone has the ability to answer it. Some approach God with humility. Some say what God does, others tell God what He should say.

We agree that only the faithful can be saved.

... and for that faith to be effective, there must be something for it to embrace/trust/rely upon... something that is real FOR THEM.

Our difference is that, for me, all the blood of Jesus was spilt effectually in salvation. For you, most of Jesus blood was spilt in vain and the sacrifice was ineffectual.
This is the core of our difference.

Nope. Not at all.

The difference is you are mandating a very radical DOGMA first invented by a FEW latter-day hyper-Calvinists and today rejected by virtually all Calvinists I'm aware of, one CLEARLY and OBVIOUSLY not taught in Scripture (which is why you can't come up with anything) and OBVIOUSLY contradicted by a plethora of verses... that Jesus died ONLY for a few.

I'm standing with Scripture.... 2000 years of ecumenical tradition.... And believing what Scripture says. No doubting. No wondering. No telling God, "but that can't be because it doesn't make sense to me."

You cannot, indeed will not, see how you weaken the sacrifice of Christ to utter meaninglessness for the majority of humanity.

Irrelevant and off-topic, but correct, you can't see that. If Christ died for only a few, then His Sacrifice is meaningless to any individual - because odds are He didn't die for them and their faith probably is in vain, they won't know until they die if what they've been trusting is really just empty nothingness. But we're WAY off topic.

For you, Christ atoned for all, but failed to save all

You seem good at asking questions.... then appointing yourself to answer them..... then claiming your answer to be dogma. A lack of humility there, my friend. This we can say with Scripture: God desires all to be saved. Jesus died for all. We apprehend that by faith. God gives faith to some. Now... do we understand how all that works? How all that cranks out? No. We know what God has told us.

You DEMAND that God submit to YOUR brain, YOUR (frankly, absurdly illogical) logic - even when it directly, obviously, contradicts EXACTLY what God has said. Maybe a little humility in needed. Maybe faith is needed. Maybe God knows more about all this than you do? Is that possible? Maybe what we should say is what God does, rather than the exact opposite?

For me, Christ atoned for all the elect and saved every single one the Father had given him.

See.... this is just ONE of the things that frustrates me so much when discussing the very radical aspects of hyper-Calvinism with you.... the constant shell game, the perpetual lack of humility. Friend, NO CHRISTIAN ON THE PLANET denies that Christ atoned for all the elect and saved every one whom the Father gave him. I've agreed with you as boldly as possible every time you'd said that! But TRY to address the issue! TRY to stop the endless shell game! NOTHING you said there remotely supports the radical dogma long ago abandoned by most Calvinists: that Jesus died ONLY for the elect.

Everyone can see that I have answered your verses.

Friend, everyone sees how you employ some of the biggest, most radical, most extreme eisegesis every witnessed (much worse than Catholics on the papacy, etc.). You HAD to turn all those versed upside down and inside out, deleting the key words and replacing them with the opposite, in order to get them to agree with you. It's horrible.

Everyone can see that you hide behind the word "only".

HHHHHHHHHEEEEEEELLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOO

It's the dogma we're discussing! You having nothing to show that Christ died ONLY for the church does not substantiate that He died ONLY for the church.





.