Jesus Christ, died for all

[Josiah]

Easy. The issue of this thread and the issue of the "L" in TULIP is very simple: Did Jesus die for all.... everyone... all people (as historic, orthodox Christianity believes) OR rather for only, exclusively, solely, just an unknowable FEW. Simple.

Now, many of us have offered Scripture to support the historic, ecumenical position (one proclaimed by the Ecumenical Council of Orange, btw).... And they are pretty clear. Over a year ago, we were promised Scriptures that state the opposite, Scriptures that state that Jesus died ONLY (that's the whole dogma, that word) for the church/elect/unknowable few. But we're still waiting.

I couldn't agree more. Nor has MennoSota.

There DOES seem to be persistent evasion from Calvinists on this. They post A LOT but it's all evasions, diversions, "not answering the question." A lot of "the shell game."

It is the sole, singular, exclusive, one issue of this thread (now on page 24),and of course as MennoSota specifically stated it IS the issue of the "L" in TULIP (a point confirmed by some esteemed Reformed websites that I referenced for him), and it IS the sole issue of a long thread he created and entitled "Jesus died ONLY for the church" (and later equated with the "L" of TULIP), it IS the issue Lutherans and Reformed Christians disagree on, but you are right my friend: No Calvinist has yet to address it, yet to answer the question.

Is this a characteristic of Reformed apologetics ? We witness it so often from MennoSota, too...

Friend, quote me.

What you have dogmatically and publicly accused me of is huge..... and in my opinion, just the "shell game" and an effort to deflect the discussion away from the stated issue and instead to personally attack me....

Friend, every one KNOWS your public personal accusation is wrong.... everyone knows you won't quote me as I request and everyone knows why.... Come on, you are far above that. You know it, too.

Now, I did state that this new denomination tradition of "Jesus died ONLY for an unknowable few" is terrible...yes. But I never said YOU were..... and you asked me why I conclude this tradition is "terrible" ..... and I specifically answered your question... and you ignored it.

That's a falsehood.

I never called you a monster. I never called you terrible. I never called you a heretic.

And I've NEVER, EVER, not once, not remotely,n not ever in my entire life, not ever stated ANYTHING negative about ANYONE agreeing with me about the soverignty of God. I've only illustrated I have a hard time spelling the word.

The denomination tradition is "Jesus died ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY, JUST for an unknowable, LIMITED FEW." It's not "Is God sovereign."

Several of us have given Scripture that states Jesus died "for the whole world" "for everyone" "for all people" "not just us but also for others". And we were promised Scriptures that state the opposite. And we're still waiting.

No.

I fully, completely agreed with the verses you presented from Ephesians and Romans. I've always agreed with every verse MennoSota has offered, too. I specifically posted to you I fully agreed with them. You then chose to ignore that. And now are accusing me of calling you a heretic, terrible, a monster for you noting these verses (that I agreed with). Friend... well...... Of course, I noted that the verses you quoted don't say Jesus died for only an unknowable few but you chose to ignore that.... and now twist that in a personal flame of you being a monster.


.

I will adress only one small part of all this.

You want to know why meaningful discussion isn't happening?
Then you state you "will discuss only one small part of this."
You admitted that you haven't addressed the question of the thread or the dogma under review.
You said you wanted to discuss John 3:16 with me but when I replied to your beginning, you totally ignored it and terminated that.
You said you wanted to know why I consider this dogma that Jesus died ONLY for a few is "horrible" so I went to some care to reply but you ignored it.


Instead...

What I got was a statement that 49 times I've posted that YOU are a heretic, a monster, etc. Which as everyone here KNOWS, I never remotely did.
What I got is that I don't hold to the soverignty of God, which is silly (I just can't seem to spell it)
And that I rejected the verses you quoted from Ephesians and Romans when, in fact, I completely, totally, absolutely, without reservation agreed with them. And told you so.

And while I hold all this is out of your character, there have been no apologies.

You sling mud with a broad brush on "a few radical Calvinists" who hold beliefs contrary to 'Christiandom' [a loose paraphrase because I do not wish to bother searching for your exact, oft repeated, quote] that clearly implies that everyone who holds to 5 point Calvinism is "radical" and has departed from the beliefs of the Church Universal.

1. You KNOW that most of the points of TULIP are not held by the church catholic.... they are DISTINCTIVES, since the late 16th Century, of one small part of Christianity (indeed, one small part of Protestantism). Come on, you know that. And yes, you KNOW that these are departures from the previous positions (and from the vast, vast majority of Christians today). You know this. There's no reason for you to feel offended over a reality you clearly know is the case. YES, it could be everyone else is wrong but that doesn't change the reality of what I stated.


2. I have simply tried to note what IMO is clearly the case: These things we find from (what seems to be) a tiny minority of Calvinists is NOT, in my view, representative of the Reformed faith. I know a lot of Reformed Christians (my wife's whole side of the family, plus many more) and they hold most of the aspects of TULIP (including the one in discussion here) to be extremist positions, not taught by Calvin, that have been almost universally rejected by Calvinists (as I understand it, they've never been embraced by most Calvinists). In fact, I have been told that THIS point (Jesus did NOT die for most but only for some) is THE most rejected part of TULIP in the Reformed faith. A Presbyterian minister at CF said "Most of us hold that TULIP is a pretty flower and that's best." I don't want most readers here to think that this is reflective of the hundreds of millions of Christians around the world under the "Reformed" umbrella. Do SOME such exists? Yes. Just as you will find SOME Lutherans who hold that the Pope is the Antichrist - but that's not a position common among Lutherans (it's very rare!) and it would be both silly and destructive to assume such is generally true among Lutherans. I like the Reformed..... I speak well of the Reformed churches.... they are NOT well represented by some of the stuff in TULIP.

At this point, CH has moved into that territory where it no longer offers anything edifying for me. It is finally time for me to take a long 'Time Out'.

Well, that's up to you.

But again, you admitted you never addressed the topic of this thread so if you never engage in the discussion, it might not prove edifying. And since you chose to not engage in two discussions you ASK ME to engage in but when I did you just "left", then that's not likely to be edifying. See my point?

One could easily "take" that you are personally very "touchy" on this..... that you feel defensive on this topic.... maybe not. But you admit to being evasive and it is evident you "opted out" even of the subdiscussions you asked for.

Friend, as we all know, TULIP is a very, very rare view. It is a denomination tradition dating back to the late 16th Century, a radical reaction to Arminianism. Friend, it is controversial (especially in the Reformed churches) and not embraced anywhere outside of it (and it seems, rarely inside of it). So, in an inter-denominational forum, you aren't going to find a lot of "yes men." Sorry, that's just the way we all could predict. You shouldn't feel shocked by that If that is troubling, you COULD choose to simply not participate in a thread you don't plan to engage in or to address? That would be an option. Something to think about. I like you.... I like the vast majority of your teachings. I think I invited you to this site.





.

 

[MennoSota]

I took you to be arguing for complacency because:

"God gave you a perfect heart
clean and pure,
you have nothing to work for,
the work is finished."

I am only scratching the surface of the work to be done...

We are all works in progress...


Arsenios

Arsenios, you are making the same argument that Paul refutes in Romans 6. Paul tells you there how Christians live.
The area wher I see you being confused is that you require works to maintain/attain salvation. You desperately want to do something to show God you are worthy of His salvation to the point that you cannot accept God doing ALL the work to make you worthy through the accomplishment of Christ alone. It's as if you refuse God's grace because you MUST work your way into God's enjoyment of you.
Here's a truth. If God has chosen you as His adopted child...He chose also to enjoy you as his child and love you as you are. I implore you to accept the work that God has done and stop telling God that he cannot accept you as you are. Each time you tell God that it's not enough...you tell God that Jesus did not do enough on the cross and you must help Jesus out. Stop doing that. Rest in the peace of Christ's work on your behalf. Accept that Christ did enough...more than enough...to make your perfect before the Father.

 

[MennoSota]

[MENTION=334]atpollard[/MENTION]






Easy.


The issue of this thread and the issue of the "L" in TULIP is very simple: Did Jesus die for all.... everyone... all people (as historic, orthodox Christianity believes) OR rather for only, exclusively, solely, just an unknowable FEW. Simple.


Now, many of us have offered Scripture to support the historic, ecumenical position (one proclaimed by the Ecumenical Council of Orange, btw).... And they are pretty clear. Over a year ago, we were promised Scriptures that state the opposite, Scriptures that state that Jesus died ONLY (that's the whole dogma, that word) for the church/elect/unknowable few. But we're still waiting.








I couldn't agree more. Nor has MennoSota.

There DOES seem to be persistent evasion from Calvinists on this. They post A LOT but it's all evasions, diversions, "not answering the question." A lot of "the shell game."


It is the sole, singular, exclusive, one issue of this thread (now on page 24),and of course as MennoSota specifically stated it IS the issue of the "L" in TULIP (a point confirmed by some esteemed Reformed websites that I referenced for him), and it IS the sole issue of a long thread he created and entitled "Jesus died ONLY for the church" (and later equated with the "L" of TULIP), it IS the issue Lutherans and Reformed Christians disagree on, but you are right my friend: No Calvinist has yet to address it, yet to answer the question.










Is this a characteristic of Reformed apologetics ? We witness it so often from MennoSota, too...


Friend, quote me.


What you have dogmatically and publicly accused me of is huge..... and in my opinion, just the "shell game" and an effort to deflect the discussion away from the stated issue and instead to personally attack me....


Friend, every one KNOWS your public personal accusation is wrong.... everyone knows you won't quote me as I request and everyone knows why.... Come on, you are far above that. You know it, too.


Now, I did state that this new denomination tradition of "Jesus died ONLY for an unknowable few" is terrible...yes. But I never said YOU were..... and you asked me why I conclude this tradition is "terrible" ..... and I specifically answered your question... and you ignored it.







That's a falsehood.

I never called you a monster. I never called you terrible. I never called you a heretic.

And I've NEVER, EVER, not once, not remotely,n not ever in my entire life, not ever stated ANYTHING negative about ANYONE agreeing with me about the soverignty of God. I've only illustrated I have a hard time spelling the word.

The denomination tradition is "Jesus died ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY, JUST for an unknowable, LIMITED FEW." It's not "Is God sovereign."



Several of us have given Scripture that states Jesus died "for the whole world" "for everyone" "for all people" "not just us but also for others". And we were promised Scriptures that state the opposite. And we're still waiting.







No.


I fully, completely agreed with the verses you presented from Ephesians and Romans. I've always agreed with every verse MennoSota has offered, too. I specifically posted to you I fully agreed with them. You then chose to ignore that. And now are accusing me of calling you a heretic, terrible, a monster for you noting these verses (that I agreed with). Friend... well...... Of course, I noted that the verses you quoted don't say Jesus died for only an unknowable few but you chose to ignore that.... and now twist that in a personal flame of you being a monster.




.

...do you realize that the elect are entirely known by God? Your statement of an "unknowable few" is just stupid talk that only you speak.

 

[MennoSota]

It is odd to watch all the arguments trying to deny that Jesus Christ died for all when holy scripture directly states that he died for all. What's the point in denying what is written in holy scripture? I appreciate that some of you believe in "Limited atonement" for whatever reasons seem good to you bu you cannot make what is written disappear.

Keep struggling with hermaneutics MC. Just trust the catechism....

 

[Josiah]

...do you realize that the elect are entirely known by God? Your statement of an "unknowable few" is just stupid talk that only you speak.

Not written to you.

Your evasion continues.

We're given the verses that state the opposite of your denomination tradition. We're still waiting for the verse(s) that state they aren't correct, Jesus actually died for ONLY a few. That's the issue of the "L" (as you yourself stated) and that's the sole and only issue here. When you have found the verse that states Jesus ONLY died for a FEW, give it. Until then, you don't seem to have anything to contribute.

 

[Andrew]

Not written to you.

Your evasion continues.

We're given the verses that state the opposite of your denomination tradition. We're still waiting for the verse(s) that state they aren't correct, Jesus actually died for ONLY a few. That's the issue of the "L" (as you yourself stated) and that's the sole and only issue here. When you have found the verse that states Jesus ONLY died for a FEW, give it. Until then, you don't seem to have anything to contribute.

Jesus laid down his life 'solely and exclusively' for the sheep.

 

[Josiah]

1 John 2:2, "Jesus is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.
OURS.... and not ONLY ours.... but ALSO for the sins of "the whole world" NOT, "Not for the whole world but rather only for an unknowable few people who just happen to live on Earth as all people do."


Hebrews 2:9 "....Jesus tasted death for everyone."
EVERYONE.... not "just for an unknowable few"


1 Timothy 4:10 "...For Christ is the Savior of all people, especially those who believe."
Not "of only a few people but not most." "Especially for those who believe" because via faith, it is received by the individual (subjective justification).


Isaiah 53:6, "... and the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all"
This prophecy is of Jesus... for those who have sin, Jesus died. For all of them. NOT "Not for all but only, exclusively, solely, just for a limited few."


John 4:42, ".... for Jesus is indeed the Savior of the world."
World. Not "of a tiny few who happen to be in the world." The verse makes no sense at all if it means only "the chosen" since the woman saying this was not a Jew and thus would not understand herself as chosen.


2 Corinthians 5:14-15, "That one had died for all.... that one has died for all."
Not "NOT for all but instead only, solely, exclusively, just for a limited FEW."


1 Timothy 4:6, "Who gave Himself as a random for all."
NOT, "Not for all but rather only, exclusively, solely, just for a limited few - and odds are, that's not you."


John 3:16, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son .... whosoever believes....."
NOT, "For God so loved only, exclusively, solely, just a tiny few who happen to be living in the world....." NOT "whosoever believes but ONLY if Jesus actually died for them which He probably didn't."


And so many, many more...


.

Jesus laid down his life 'solely and exclusively' for the sheep.

.... and the verse that states that is????



.

 

[Andrew]

.... and the verse that states that is????



.

John 10:11

 

[Josiah]

John 10:11

Where does it say "solely and exclusively" as you indicated?

No one disputes that Jesus died for His sheep! Of course He did! That's not the issue here; no Christian of any tradition or denomination argues with that. We ALL argree, 100%, with this verse.

But where is the "ONLY?" Where is the "SOLELY?" Where is the "EXCLUSIVELY" as you indicated it stated?

If I posted, "Ford Mustangs are automobiles" would that teach it is ergo dogma that ONLY Ford Mustangs are automobiles? If I posted that I love my wife, would that prove that I don't love God or my son? If I posted that I'm a sinner, would that prove that you aren't? If I quoted a verse that says Jesus is God would that prove the Holy Spirit is not? Why not? Because there is no "only." Just as there is not in the verse you quote that everyone agrees with.





1 John 2:2, "Jesus is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.
OURS.... and not ONLY ours.... but ALSO for the sins of "the whole world" NOT, "Not for the whole world but rather only for an unknowable few people who just happen to live on Earth as all people do."


Hebrews 2:9 "....Jesus tasted death for everyone."
EVERYONE.... not "just for an unknowable few"


1 Timothy 4:10 "...For Christ is the Savior of all people, especially those who believe."
Not "of only a few people but not most." "Especially for those who believe" because via faith, it is received by the individual (subjective justification).


Isaiah 53:6, "... and the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all"
This prophecy is of Jesus... for those who have sin, Jesus died. For all of them. NOT "Not for all but only, exclusively, solely, just for a limited few."


John 4:42, ".... for Jesus is indeed the Savior of the world."
World. Not "of a tiny few who happen to be in the world." The verse makes no sense at all if it means only "the chosen" since the woman saying this was not a Jew and thus would not understand herself as chosen.


2 Corinthians 5:14-15, "That one had died for all.... that one has died for all."
Not "NOT for all but only, solely, exclusively, just for a limited FEW."


1 Timothy 4:6, "Who gave Himself as a random for all."
NOT, "Not for all but only, exclusively, solely, just for a limited few - and odds are, that's not you."


John 3:16, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son .... whosoever believes....."
NOT, "For God so loved only, exclusively, solely, just a tiny few who happen to be in the world....." NOT "whosoever believes but ONLY if Jesus actually died for them which He probably didn't."


And so many, many more...



.

 

[Andrew]

Where does it say "solely and exclusively" as you indicated?

No one disputes that Jesus died for His sheep! Of course He did! That's not the issue here; no Christian of any tradition or denomination argues with that. We ALL argree, 100%, with this verse.

But where is the "ONLY?" Where is the "SOLELY?" Where is the "EXCLUSIVELY" as you indicated it stated?

If I posted, "Ford Mustangs are automobiles" would that teach it is ergo dogma that ONLY Ford Mustangs are automobiles? If I posted that I love my wife, would that prove that I don't love God or my son? If I posted that I'm a sinner, would that prove that you aren't? If I quoted a verse that says Jesus is God would that prove the Holy Spirit is not?





1 John 2:2, "Jesus is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.
OURS.... and not ONLY ours.... but ALSO for the sins of "the whole world" NOT, "Not for the whole world but rather only for an unknowable few people who just happen to live on Earth as all people do."


Hebrews 2:9 "....Jesus tasted death for everyone."
EVERYONE.... not "just for an unknowable few"


1 Timothy 4:10 "...For Christ is the Savior of all people, especially those who believe."
Not "of only a few people but not most." "Especially for those who believe" because via faith, it is received by the individual (subjective justification).


Isaiah 53:6, "... and the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all"
This prophecy is of Jesus... for those who have sin, Jesus died. For all of them. NOT "Not for all but only, exclusively, solely, just for a limited few."


John 4:42, ".... for Jesus is indeed the Savior of the world."
World. Not "of a tiny few who happen to be in the world." The verse makes no sense at all if it means only "the chosen" since the woman saying this was not a Jew and thus would not understand herself as chosen.


2 Corinthians 5:14-15, "That one had died for all.... that one has died for all."
Not "NOT for all but only, solely, exclusively, just for a limited FEW."


1 Timothy 4:6, "Who gave Himself as a random for all."
NOT, "Not for all but only, exclusively, solely, just for a limited few - and odds are, that's not you."


John 3:16, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son .... whosoever believes....."
NOT, "For God so loved only, exclusively, solely, just a tiny few who happen to be in the world....." NOT "whosoever believes but ONLY if Jesus actually died for them which He probably didn't."


And so many, many more...



.

The Sheep = only the sheep (solely/exclusively)
It's implied..
We agree Josiah, Christ died for the sheep, he is the good shepard.

 

[Josiah]

Where does John 10:11 state "solely and exclusively" as you indicated (with quotes)?

No one disputes that Jesus died for His sheep! Of course He did! That's not the issue here; no Christian of any tradition or denomination argues with that. We ALL argree, 100%, with this verse.

But where is the "ONLY?" Where is the "SOLELY?" Where is the "EXCLUSIVELY" as you indicated it stated?

If I posted, "Ford Mustangs are automobiles" would that teach it is ergo dogma that ONLY Ford Mustangs are automobiles? If I posted that I love my wife, would that prove that I don't love God or my son? If I posted that I'm a sinner, would that prove that you aren't? If I quoted a verse that says Jesus is God would that prove the Holy Spirit is not?



.

It's implied..

.... well, it's imposed. But you agree: the verse doesn't say it.

We agree Josiah, Christ died for the sheep, he is the good shepard.

We disagree on the "ONLY." Which is the sole issue of this thread (and the teaching of the "L" of TULIP). Obviously, anyone can CLAIM something is "implied by invisible words" or "Jesus MEANT to say it" but that can be a very dangerous way to create new dogma.




.

 

[Andrew]

.... well, it's imposed. But you agree: the verse doesn't say it.





We disagree on the "ONLY." Which is the sole issue of this thread (and the teaching of the "L" of TULIP). Obviously, anyone can CLAIM something is "implied by invisible words" or "Jesus MEANT to say it" but that can be a very dangerous way to create new dogma.




.

All believers have more great things in common than we have disagreements on, regardless of our stance on 'Limited Atonement' it does not effect the others salvation.
As for implying invisible words, we know that there is the sheep and the goats... 'The sheep' implies 100% that it is not 'the goats", so when we say "Christ died for the sheep" it means exactly and indefinitely and undeniably the SHEEP/FLOCK ALONE.
Christ comes for his CHURCH alone, the Elect alone, the Sheep alone.
"Where there is no faith, there is no atonement"

 

[MennoSota]

Not written to you.

Your evasion continues.

We're given the verses that state the opposite of your denomination tradition. We're still waiting for the verse(s) that state they aren't correct, Jesus actually died for ONLY a few. That's the issue of the "L" (as you yourself stated) and that's the sole and only issue here. When you have found the verse that states Jesus ONLY died for a FEW, give it. Until then, you don't seem to have anything to contribute.

Your evasion continues. You have been provided with verses, had your verses explained to you, one by one, and you still refuse to believe anything other than your tortured belief. So be it.

 

[MennoSota]

Where does it say "solely and exclusively" as you indicated?

No one disputes that Jesus died for His sheep! Of course He did! That's not the issue here; no Christian of any tradition or denomination argues with that. We ALL argree, 100%, with this verse.

But where is the "ONLY?" Where is the "SOLELY?" Where is the "EXCLUSIVELY" as you indicated it stated?

If I posted, "Ford Mustangs are automobiles" would that teach it is ergo dogma that ONLY Ford Mustangs are automobiles? If I posted that I love my wife, would that prove that I don't love God or my son? If I posted that I'm a sinner, would that prove that you aren't? If I quoted a verse that says Jesus is God would that prove the Holy Spirit is not? Why not? Because there is no "only." Just as there is not in the verse you quote that everyone agrees with.





1 John 2:2, "Jesus is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.
OURS.... and not ONLY ours.... but ALSO for the sins of "the whole world" NOT, "Not for the whole world but rather only for an unknowable few people who just happen to live on Earth as all people do."


Hebrews 2:9 "....Jesus tasted death for everyone."
EVERYONE.... not "just for an unknowable few"


1 Timothy 4:10 "...For Christ is the Savior of all people, especially those who believe."
Not "of only a few people but not most." "Especially for those who believe" because via faith, it is received by the individual (subjective justification).


Isaiah 53:6, "... and the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all"
This prophecy is of Jesus... for those who have sin, Jesus died. For all of them. NOT "Not for all but only, exclusively, solely, just for a limited few."


John 4:42, ".... for Jesus is indeed the Savior of the world."
World. Not "of a tiny few who happen to be in the world." The verse makes no sense at all if it means only "the chosen" since the woman saying this was not a Jew and thus would not understand herself as chosen.


2 Corinthians 5:14-15, "That one had died for all.... that one has died for all."
Not "NOT for all but only, solely, exclusively, just for a limited FEW."


1 Timothy 4:6, "Who gave Himself as a random for all."
NOT, "Not for all but only, exclusively, solely, just for a limited few - and odds are, that's not you."


John 3:16, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son .... whosoever believes....."
NOT, "For God so loved only, exclusively, solely, just a tiny few who happen to be in the world....." NOT "whosoever believes but ONLY if Jesus actually died for them which He probably didn't."


And so many, many more...



.

All explained to you with so many more provided back. It is sad that you require Jesus blood to be ineffective for a vast majority of humankind.

 

[Josiah]

"Where there is no faith, there is no atonement"

Agreed, that by no means substantiates that Jesus died for only a few - and that's why there is no atonement for them.


It seems you have one verse.... that in your opinion, "IMPLIES" something. I disagree. And have documented why. But we agree the quotes you stated it said aren't there at all. But friend, we have MANY verses that CLEARLY (no "implied" no "invisible words" no "spin" needed) that state the opposite, that flat out, verbatim contradict this denominational tradition. We might disagree, but a FEW people in ONE denomination inventing a brand new dogma... based on what THEY feel is IMPLIED in one verse.... while rejecting a host of Scriptures always accepted by all Christians (other than their few on one denomination) that flat out, verbatim states the opposite - well, that's a bad way to create dogma. Protestantism was born out of repudiated the RCC for doing MUCH less. See my point?




.

 

[Andrew]

Agreed, that by no means substantiates that Jesus died for only a few - and that's why there is no atonement for them.


It seems you have one verse.... that in your opinion, "IMPLIES" something. I disagree. And have documented why. But we agree the quotes you stated it said aren't there at all. But friend, we have MANY verses that CLEARLY (no "implied" no "invisible words" no "spin" needed) that state the opposite, that flat out, verbatim contradict this denominational tradition. We might disagree, but a FEW people in ONE denomination inventing a brand new dogma... based on what THEY feel is IMPLIED in one verse.... while rejecting a host of Scriptures always accepted by all Christians (other than their few on one denomination) that flat out, verbatim states the opposite - well, that's a bad way to create dogma. Protestantism was born out of repudiated the RCC for doing MUCH less. See my point?




.

Maybe we disagree on what 'world' means in context, to me it means not just the Jew but the Gentile also thus both or all without distinction... it seems the Apostles couldn't stress this enough to the Jews and so "and not just for us but for the whole world" meant that not just for the Jews only but for the Gentile world also.
I stand on this as to what it can only mean.. for if it means Christ laid down his life for everyone regardless of faith or belief then ALL the world is Gods church... if thats the case then no one belongs in hell because all are made righteous... we know that this is not true, so we should understand the importance of what it meant to the Jews who most were not so happy of the idea that their Messiah was going to save non Jews thus "not only for our sins but of the sins of the world"

 

[Josiah]

if it means Christ laid down his life for everyone regardless of faith or belief then ALL the world is Gods church...

Except WE are the ones indicating that faith is a factor!!!!!!

Here's the position the supporters of this late denominational tradition make: "If Jesus died for all, then all would be saved - and clearly that's not true, ergo Jesus didn't die for all." What have they deleted? Why is their "answer" to their "question" wrong?

What they do is change John 3:16 so that it reads, "For God so loved just a tiny, few, unidentified people who just happen to reside on the planet Earth like everyone else so that Jesus died just for those few, so that they will not perish but have everlasting life." That's not what the verse says, is it? They have to mutilate a LOT of Scriptures in even worse ways too to try to support this new invention of a tiny few latter-day Calvinists in the late 16th Century.

if thats the case then no one belongs in hell because all are made righteous...

... individuals receive that gift by faith. Those who have no faith don't receive it and thus don't have it. If one doesn't have it, does that prove it was never provided for them?

If I gave a $50.00 Starbucks Gift Card for everyone here at CH... I didn't steal them, they aren't fakes, they aren't frauds, they aren't cruel jokes, they aren't false promises... they are REAL. I actually, really DID something. But some don't use them. Some never apprehend, trust, embrace, rely, us them.... is the coffee theirs? Is Pikes Place Coffee at 180 degrees pouring down their gullet simply because I bought them a gift card? Or is there another factor in play?

These Calvinists simply took the things the radical Arminianists said - and said the opposite. In a rubric similar to noting that the car isn't black THEREFORE it must be white. They came up with something just as wrong, just as illogical, just as unbiblical. And both sides "prove" it of the other, but neither sees they are doing the identical same thing.



I realize.... one can find verses that if they INSERT words they admit aren't there..... words they claim Jesus MEANT to say but forgot.... words they claim are IMPLIED..... then anything can be asserted. This is especially dangerous when new dogma is suddenly invented by a few in one denomination - a new denomination tradition - by claiming just some an "implication" in a verse.... and then having to mutilate MANY Scriptures that flat-out state in verbatim words the exact opposite. A bad way to do theology. Protestantism was born out of a rejection of that rubric. Ironically, the Catholic Schlastics did that to invent Purgatory and Indulgences and Transubstantiation with a lot LESS of that than what we see here, with these new dogmas in TULIP.


I realize, too, that biblical teachings sometimes don't fully "connect" or answer all OUR questions. That's not God's problem. See this thread: http://christianityhaven.com/showthread.php?6609-How-Smart-is-Self Read the opening post.



Thank you!



- Josiah





.

 

[Andrew]

Except WE are the ones indicating that faith is a factor!!!!!!

Here's the position the supporters of this late denominational tradition make: "If Jesus died for all, then all would be saved - and clearly that's not true, ergo Jesus didn't die for all." What have they deleted? Why is their "answer" to their "question" wrong?

What they do is change John 3:16 so that it reads, "For God so loved just a tiny, few, unidentified people who just happen to reside on the planet Earth like everyone else so that Jesus died just for those few, so that they will not perish but have everlasting life." That's not what the verse says, is it? They have to mutilate a LOT of Scriptures in even worse ways too to try to support this new invention of a tiny few latter-day Calvinists in the late 16th Century.







... individuals receive that gift by faith. Those who have no faith don't receive it and thus don't have it. If one doesn't have it, does that prove it was never provided for them?

If I gave a $50.00 Starbucks Gift Card for everyone here at CH... I didn't steal them, they aren't fakes, they aren't frauds, they aren't cruel jokes, they aren't false promises... they are REAL. I actually, really DID something. But some don't use them. Some never apprehend, trust, embrace, rely, us them.... is the coffee theirs? Is Pikes Place Coffee at 180 degrees pouring down their gullet simply because I bought them a gift card? Or is there another factor in play?

These Calvinists simply took the things the radical Arminianists said - and said the opposite. In a rubric similar to noting that the car isn't black THEREFORE it must be white. They came up with something just as wrong, just as illogical, just as unbiblical. And both sides "prove" it of the other, but neither sees they are doing the identical same thing.



I realize.... one can find verses that if they INSERT words they admit aren't there..... words they claim Jesus MEANT to say but forgot.... words they claim are IMPLIED..... then anything can be asserted. This is especially dangerous when new dogma is suddenly invented by a few in one denomination - a new denomination tradition - by claiming just some an "implication" in a verse.... and then having to mutilate MANY Scriptures that flat-out state in verbatim words the exact opposite. A bad way to do theology. Protestantism was born out of a rejection of that rubric. Ironically, the Catholic Schlastics did that to invent Purgatory and Indulgences and Transubstantiation with a lot LESS of that than what we see here, with these new dogmas in TULIP.


I realize, too, that biblical teachings sometimes don't fully "connect" or answer all OUR questions. That's not God's problem. See this thread: http://christianityhaven.com/showthread.php?6609-How-Smart-is-Self Read the opening post.



Thank you!



- Josiah





.

The story of Job expresses greatly how mysterious and sovereign God really is.
What concerns me is how every denomination believes that they have figured it all out to the point that they begin to add on dogmas that end up confusing his people... the 5 points of Calvinism is not as radical as you make it seem, it is simply based on biblical teachings that remind us that God is sovereign over his creation and not the other way around... We all know that 'alone' was added to by Lutherans to imply "by faith (alone)" but that word is not actually in that sentence, so that argument is not so valid when discrediting that Christ came and laid his life down for the sheep (alone)...
ALL of those whom God has called forth WILL and DO come forth as they were written in the lambs book of life from all eternities, none shall be spared and absolutely NO GOAT will reap the benefits of salvation.
Universal atonement is a man made doctrine that is not scriptural, general atonement/limited atonement was just as reformed concerning church dogma as Lutheranism was.
I just happened to agree in the end that TULIP does make sense and I cannot pretend that it doesn't thus I defend it respectfully.
I don't declare however that "if you don't believe this than you are a fool" and btw Josiah, Christ IS most likely YOUR savior and MINE too! (as opposed to your suggestion that TULIP means otherwise).
The Lutheran Synod FAQ understands a contradiction that Jesus died for the Church only and also for everyone else...
I still believe that many are missing the context of the word "world" and this is where many stumble.

 

[Andrew]

.

 

[Josiah]

What concerns me is how every denomination believes that they have figured it all out to the point that they begin to add on dogmas that end up confusing his people... the 5 points of Calvinism is not as radical as you make it seem, it is simply based on biblical teachings

Then it's easy. They will quote the verses that state God desires and causes most people to go to hell ... that Jesus did NOT die for all, for everyone, for all those on earth as the Bible says but ONLY for some few.... that God's grace is irresistable, that if one has faith at some moment in their life they are saved even if they repudiate Christ.... etc. Thing is, Andrew, they don't. And they prove and sometimes admit it. And they have to mutilate a LOT of Scriptures that verbatim say the exact opposite.

I just happened to agree in the end that TULIP does make sense and I cannot pretend that it doesn't thus I defend it respectfully.

"It makes sense to me" doesn't make it right. EVERY heretic an false teacher in history believed that his view "make sense" to him. Arminianism, which TULIP is meant to be the exact opposite of, also "makes sense" to those who embrace it.

The question is not "does this make sense to me." The question is: is it true? Does Scripture say this?

What is undeniable, unquestionable... is that TULIP is a collection of dogmas invented in the late 16th Century by a FEW latter-day Calvinists followers.... it is rejected by everyone else, by the Ecumenical Council of Orange and by the majority of Calvinists... it is a LATE, rare, unique denominational tradition that stands very apart from 2000 years of Christianity and maybe 99% of Christians. And many admit... they have not one Scripture - not one - that states their position.

btw Josiah, Christ IS most likely YOUR savior and MINE too! (as opposed to your suggestion that TULIP means otherwise).

That's the most you can say via TULIP. But actually, in TULIP, the odds are you're not right. After all, He did NOT die for most.

In classic Christianity, the point is the OBJECT of faith. If one is believing in Christ, they ARE thus saved. But in TULIP, the object of faith is irrelevant because Jesus did NOT die for most, is NOT the Savior of most, has NOTHING to offer most. They may believe in Christ as their Savior but Jesus likely is not their Savior, they are trusting in something not there, not real for them, a false promise, a fraud. They must wonder - endlessly - if Jesus died for THEM and since there is no list of whom He died for, they can ever know if they are on their list. Traditional Christian has a response: Jesus died for ALL so if you claim such, it is for YOU. The Calvinist must reply, "probably not... but IF your faith comes from God, IF that is true (and you can never know), IF that is true - then you are saved.


As you agree, there is no verse that says Jesus died for only a few. But we have given MANY Scriptures that verbatim, flat-out, in clear words contradict that.


The issue of the "L" is singular and specific.... and is the "L" of TULIP. Did Jesus die for all or only, exclusively, solely, just for some unknowable (never named) limited few. All the rest is deflection, diversion, evasion. We have many Scriptures that say He died for you.... the Calvinist has none that say he only died for some unnamed few.

L (Limited Atonement). It is true that Jesus died for the church and purchased it with His blood. Furthermore, His atoning death does not mean that all are saved. Jesus die for all (2 Corinthians 5:15)

CORRECT!
So "L" is wrong.....
It is WRONG that Jesus died for only, exclusively, solely, just some unknowable/never listed FEW.
It is WRONG that if Jesus died for all, ergo all are saved.
Yup, Jesus died "FOR ALL."
I could not agree with you more.
What a stunning rebuke of the "L" of TULIP, of this new denominational tradition.


Correct. The "L" is wrong.



.