Jesus Christ, died for all

[MennoSota]

atpollard, I didn't put all of them in one quote. But nice dodge.....


Let's try again:


Here's just a few of the Scriptures that teach the opposite of your dogma:


First John 2:2 "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world." "Whole world".


Hebrews 2:9 "by the grace of God he tasted death for everyone. "Everyone"


1 Timothy 4:10 "we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe." "All people".


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


2 Corinthians 5:15 "he died for all" "All"


Hebrews 2:9 "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". "Everyone."


1 Timothy 2:4 "God desires all people to be saved." "All people"


Titus 2:11 "For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people." "All people"


Just a few.... there are more. And note, not just one. Not just from one biblical book or author.



Now, can you be the first Calvinist ever (in over 400 years) to present even one Scripture that states "Jesus died not for all but rather for ONLY SOME?" Be the first!

Can you find a verse relating to His death that even contains the words "only" "few" "some" ?

SURE, you can radically spin a LOT of verses to insist they MEAN the exact opposite of what they actually state, but using that rubric, one can prove every error under the sun.





.

All humans are therefore bought, purchased, paid for and redeemed. Let the celebration begin for "all are saved and hit the mark for the glory of God."

 

[MoreCoffee]

I am .. waiting for those "many" verses which you [Josiah] ... claim "literally", "explicitly" and "verbatim" state "Jesus died for all".

For the record, there is also no verse that uses the word "Trinity" but that doesn't prove that the doctrine of the Trinity is false.

Please excuse my edit of your post. I edited it so that I can reply without being identified with the "you" that is the object of the ire in your post (which I edited out). I want to deal with the issue that you raised while avoiding entanglement in the dispute with another member of CH.

There is one verse that speaks of Christ dying for all and numerous verses that imply it or obliquely state it. One passage has been quoted many times in this thread and some of my own posts deals with it and commentary about it fairly extensively. That verse is " For the charity of Christ urges us on, in consideration of this: that if one died for all, then all have died. And Christ died for all, so that even those who live might not now live for themselves, but for him who died for them and who rose again." (2 Corinthians 5:14-15)

The intended teaching in the two verses quoted above is that Christ's death is for all people and effective for those who die with Christ and rise with him in new life by union with him through baptism (Romans 6:3-5) and their new life is given so that they can live their earthly lives for Christ rather than for themselves.

One passage is sufficient to establish the belief that Christ died for all. More than one helps to flesh out what it means. Some of the passages that flesh out the meaning are these:

For Christ also died once for our sins, the Just One on behalf of the unjust, so that he might offer us to God, having died, certainly, in the flesh, but having been enlivened by the Spirit. And in the Spirit, he preached to those who were in prison, going to those souls who had been unbelieving in past times, while they waited for the patience of God, as in the days of Noah, when the ark was being built. In that ark, a few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water. And now you also are saved, in a similar manner, by baptism, not by the testimony of sordid flesh, but by the examination of a good conscience in God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He is at the right hand of God, devouring death, so that we may be made heirs to eternal life. And since he has journeyed to heaven, the Angels and powers and virtues are subject to him. (I Peter 3:18-22)

Here is taught the lesson that Christ died for the unjust and that his death is effective for those who are baptised. Since the holy scriptures teach that all sin and are in need of redemption and these verses speak of the unjust it is not a stretch to see "the unjust" as including all people thus the implication is that Christ died for all.

My little sons, this I write to you, so that you may not sin. But if anyone has sinned, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ, the Just One. And he is the propitiation for our sins. And not only for our sins, but also for those of the whole world. And we can be sure that we have known him by this: if we observe his commandments. (I John 2:1-3)

Here the teaching is that Christ died for the sins of the whole world and the implication is that if He died for the sins of the whole world then he died for all the sinners who sinned those sins which would be everyone.

But someone, in a certain place, has testified, saying: “What is man, that you are mindful of him, or the Son of man, that you visit him? You have reduced him to a little less than the Angels. You have crowned him with glory and honour, and you have set him over the works of your hands. You have subjected all things under his feet.” For in as much as he has subjected all things to him, he has left nothing not subject to him. But in the present time, we do not yet perceive that all things have been made subject to him. Yet we understand that Jesus, who was reduced to a little less than the Angels, was crowned with glory and honour because of his Passion and death, in order that, by the grace of God, he might taste death for all. (Hebrews 2:6-9)

Here the teaching is that Christ died for all tasting death for all and also that his death is effective for those who he leads to glory (see verse 10 and following).​

There are many more passages that I could present where the implication is that Christ died for all but I hope that these are sufficient to show that it is not sheer cussedness that leads so many Christians to affirm that Jesus did indeed die for the benefit of all even if many forego the benefit of his sacrificial death.

 

[Josiah]

All humans are therefore bought, purchased, paid for and redeemed.

Amen! There goes the "L" of TULIP, the "tight" interconnected invention of TULIP destroyed.

Of course, we don't agree with you in your repudiation of Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide, your repudiation of faith having any role of justification. Traditional, orthodox, biblical Christianity would agree that yes, Jesus died for ALL (as the Bible so often, so boldly, so clearly states).... but no, not all are justified because not all have faith. It's no wonder many radical Calvinists invented Universalism because they realized what you do, but held on to the radical Calvinist repudiation of faith in justification. As you now realize the profound error of "Jesus died not for all but for ONLY SOME" also reject the radical Calvinist repudiation of faith. It's Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide! Then you have returned to biblical, orthodox, Christianity.




.

 

[atpollard]

atpollard, I didn't put all of them in one quote. But nice dodge.....

You are right. You said “precisely, directly, literally, verbatim, often”.

According to Scripture, Jesus died for all. The Bible states that precisely, directly, literally, verbatim, often. And there is no Scripture (not one, not anywhere) that says "Jesus died for ONLY SOME."

So I am waiting for the “often” appearing verses that state “precisely, directly, literally, verbatim” the following ... “Jesus died for all”.

The definition of “literally” and “verbatim” remains unchanged, so let’s see those verses that say VERBATIM what you claim they say.

 

[Josiah]

atpollard, I didn't put all of them in one quote. But nice dodge.....


Let's try again:


Here's just a few of the Scriptures that teach the opposite of your dogma:


First John 2:2 "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world." "Whole world".


Hebrews 2:9 "by the grace of God he tasted death for everyone. "Everyone"


1 Timothy 4:10 "we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe." "All people".


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


2 Corinthians 5:15 "he died for all "All"


Hebrews 2:9 "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". "Everyone."


1 Timothy 2:4 "God desires all people to be saved." "All people"


Titus 2:11 "For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people." "All people"


Just a few.... there are more. And note, not just one. Not just from one biblical book or author.



Now, can you be the first Calvinist ever (in over 400 years) to present even one Scripture that states "Jesus died not for all but rather for ONLY SOME?" Be the first!

Can you find a verse relating to His death that even contains the words "only" "few" "some" ?

SURE, you can radically spin a LOT of verses to insist they MEAN the exact opposite of what they actually state, but using that rubric, one can prove every error under the sun.




.

 

[Andrew]

Christ said himself that he lays his life down for His sheep, for the sins of many (he did not say 'all) and he does not pray for the world, that the non sheep can not hear him thus can NOT come to him, Christ does not tell us that everyone will be atoned for, thus the atonement is limited to only THOSE whom the Father has given him.

 

[Josiah]

Christ does not tell us that everyone will be atoned for, thus the atonement is limited to only THOSE whom the Father has given him.

Actually, He does. He simply doesn't convey that ergo all will be justified (since he disagrees with radical Calvinists that faith is irrelevant). Yes, those whom the Father has given Him are His church, the ones He prays for. But no, the Bible never says He died for "ONLY THEM." Although you can be the first one in over 400 years to find that verse, the one that contradicts all the ones that say He died for all.

 

[atpollard]

Please excuse my edit of your post. I edited it so that I can reply without being identified with the "you" that is the object of the ire in your post (which I edited out). I want to deal with the issue that you raised while avoiding entanglement in the dispute with another member of CH.

There is one verse that speaks of Christ dying for all and numerous verses that imply it or obliquely state it. One passage has been quoted many times in this thread and some of my own posts deals with it and commentary about it fairly extensively. That verse is " For the charity of Christ urges us on, in consideration of this: that if one died for all, then all have died. And Christ died for all, so that even those who live might not now live for themselves, but for him who died for them and who rose again." (2 Corinthians 5:14-15)

The intended teaching in the two verses quoted above is that Christ's death is for all people and effective for those who die with Christ and rise with him in new life by union with him through baptism (Romans 6:3-5) and their new life is given so that they can live their earthly lives for Christ rather than for themselves.

One passage is sufficient to establish the belief that Christ died for all. More than one helps to flesh out what it means. Some of the passages that flesh out the meaning are these:

For Christ also died once for our sins, the Just One on behalf of the unjust, so that he might offer us to God, having died, certainly, in the flesh, but having been enlivened by the Spirit. And in the Spirit, he preached to those who were in prison, going to those souls who had been unbelieving in past times, while they waited for the patience of God, as in the days of Noah, when the ark was being built. In that ark, a few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water. And now you also are saved, in a similar manner, by baptism, not by the testimony of sordid flesh, but by the examination of a good conscience in God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He is at the right hand of God, devouring death, so that we may be made heirs to eternal life. And since he has journeyed to heaven, the Angels and powers and virtues are subject to him. (I Peter 3:18-22)

Here is taught the lesson that Christ died for the unjust and that his death is effective for those who are baptised. Since the holy scriptures teach that all sin and are in need of redemption and these verses speak of the unjust it is not a stretch to see "the unjust" as including all people thus the implication is that Christ died for all.

My little sons, this I write to you, so that you may not sin. But if anyone has sinned, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ, the Just One. And he is the propitiation for our sins. And not only for our sins, but also for those of the whole world. And we can be sure that we have known him by this: if we observe his commandments. (I John 2:1-3)

Here the teaching is that Christ died for the sins of the whole world and the implication is that if He died for the sins of the whole world then he died for all the sinners who sinned those sins which would be everyone.

But someone, in a certain place, has testified, saying: “What is man, that you are mindful of him, or the Son of man, that you visit him? You have reduced him to a little less than the Angels. You have crowned him with glory and honour, and you have set him over the works of your hands. You have subjected all things under his feet.” For in as much as he has subjected all things to him, he has left nothing not subject to him. But in the present time, we do not yet perceive that all things have been made subject to him. Yet we understand that Jesus, who was reduced to a little less than the Angels, was crowned with glory and honour because of his Passion and death, in order that, by the grace of God, he might taste death for all. (Hebrews 2:6-9)

Here the teaching is that Christ died for all tasting death for all and also that his death is effective for those who he leads to glory (see verse 10 and following).​

There are many more passages that I could present where the implication is that Christ died for all but I hope that these are sufficient to show that it is not sheer cussedness that leads so many Christians to affirm that Jesus did indeed die for the benefit of all even if many forego the benefit of his sacrificial death.

I don’t have a problem with seeing that position and I once held it myself. I am aware of the scriptures and how they can be and are interpreted by many (perhaps even most) theologians as affirming unlimited Atonement. I simply disagree (along with the overwhelming majority of Reformed Theologians). It is not the existence of the scriptures that I deny, rather it is the definition of “all” that we disagree on.

All I know is that all of the Free Will advocates bring up John 3:16 all the time.

In the case of my “close personal friend” Josiah, he refuses to engage in any civil exchange and simply repeats a demand for a verse with a wording of his choosing. When any verse is presented, it is dismissed because it lacks the wording he demanded. So when he foolishly made extravagant claims about what scripture says, it offered a chance to respond to him in kind. I doubt it will achieve any change in modus operandi, but in the mean time ... tit for tat is a pleasant change from being on the short end of a double standard.

 

[atpollard]

atpollard, I didn't put all of them in one quote. But nice dodge.....

Liar ... you wrote it in post 851, which I quoted.

Now either put up and provide the verse, or shut up and admit the Bible does not state VERBATIM “Jesus died for all.”

 

[Josiah]

In the case of my “close personal friend” Josiah, he refuses to engage in any civil exchange

I'm more than willing to engage in an exchange. I'm not willing to insert "NOT" into verse after verse to make them "mean" the opposite of what they state, the opposite of the Rule of Faith, the opposite of the Ecumenical Council of Orange. In order to make faith irrelevant in justification and to make God a liar who offers something He doesn't have for them and create a terror since no one can even guess as to whether Jesus died for them and whether their faith actually is grasping something that is for them (which according to TULIP probably isn't). There's a reason Dr. Sproul pointed out this is the least accepted aspect of Calvinism among Calvinists.... why in the 22 minute video, he never once had the guts to actually say "Jesus did not die for all", why he couldn't give one verse to support the view but only some that contradict it.


I realize.... perfectly....that TULIP is an extremely tight, interdependent, "logical" construct meant to contradict not only Arminianism but all of Christianity. I realize how one point is simply accepted because another part makes it "logical." But it's not biblical, it flat out contradicts Scripture as well as the Rule of faith and centuries of faith.


IF you had a verse, "Jesus died for ONLY SOME" we could discuss how that relates to all the other verses about "all." But you don't. So I don't know what there is to discuss.




.

 

[atpollard]

Actually, He does. He simply doesn't convey that ergo all will be justified (since he disagrees with radical Calvinists that faith is irrelevant). Yes, those whom the Father has given Him are His church, the ones He prays for. But no, the Bible never says He died for "ONLY THEM." Although you can be the first one in over 400 years to find that verse, the one that contradicts all the ones that say He died for all.

You could start with the verse that he provided and you ignored. :yawning: (as usual)

 

[Andrew]

Actually, He does. He simply doesn't convey that ergo all will be justified (since he disagrees with radical Calvinists that faith is irrelevant). Yes, those whom the Father has given Him are His church, the ones He prays for. But no, the Bible never says He died for "ONLY THEM." Although you can be the first one in over 400 years to find that verse, the one that contradicts all the ones that say He died for all.

Josiah only the believers receive the atonement, if the whole world received the atonement (including non believers) then hell would not exist

 

[MoreCoffee]

I don’t have a problem with seeing that position and I once held it myself. I am aware of the scriptures and how they can be and are interpreted by many (perhaps even most) theologians as affirming unlimited Atonement. I simply disagree (along with the overwhelming majority of Reformed Theologians). It is not the existence of the scriptures that I deny, rather it is the definition of “all” that we disagree on.

I see no issue here except for the one you identify; namely the meaning of all and I take the view that all is best left to its general meaning unless there are really good reasons to shift its meaning to something unusual. And the commentary from Albert Barnes on 2Corinthians 5:14, that I posted before, presents a very strong case for treating "Christ died for all" as meaning that he did in fact die for everyone.

All I know is that all of the Free Will advocates bring up John 3:16 all the time.

In the case of my “close personal friend” Josiah, he refuses to engage in any civil exchange and simply repeats a demand for a verse with a wording of his choosing. When any verse is presented, it is dismissed because it lacks the wording he demanded. So when he foolishly made extravagant claims about what scripture says, it offered a chance to respond to him in kind. I doubt it will achieve any change in modus operandi, but in the mean time ... tit for tat is a pleasant change from being on the short end of a double standard.

I know the feeling. I have some difficulty coping with the same post appearing a dozen or thereabouts times either reposted or included in a huge "context" quote.

 

[atpollard]

I see no issue here except for the one you identify; namely the meaning of all and I take the view that all is best left to its general meaning unless there are really good reasons to shift its meaning to something unusual. And the commentary from Albert Barnes on 2Corinthians 5:14, that I posted before, presents a very strong case for treating "Christ died for all" as meaning that he did in fact die for everyone.

I agree that Barnes makes a good case, until you read a commentary that reaches a different conclusion ... then you are back where you started: Does ALL mean "everyone without exception" or does ALL mean "some from every tribe, tongue and nation"?

[2Co 3:2 NASB] 2 You are our letter, written in our hearts, known and read by all men;
[2Co 5:14-15 NASB] 14 For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died; 15 and He died for all, so that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf.
[2Co 9:13 NASB] 13 Because of the proof given by this ministry, they will glorify God for [your] obedience to your confession of the gospel of Christ and for the liberality of your contribution to them and to all,
[2Co 13:13 NASB] 13 All the saints greet you.

Do all these other uses of ALL in the same letter refer to "everyone without exception"? [obviously just "every saint without exception" in the case of 2 Cor 13:13]
I am not attempting to refute Barnes (or you), I am just questioning whether the interpretation methodology is being uniformly applied.

The case for Jesus NOT shedding His blood for the whole world (every person without exception) is not a strong one from direct Scripture. It is an argument resulting as a logical conclusion from other facts which are very strongly supported by scripture.

Jesus WILL raise all that the Father draws [John 6:44]
Many will not spend eternity in Heaven [Mat 7:13]
Salvation is a gift from God [Eph 2:8]
The blood of Jesus justifies and the resurrection of Jesus saves [Rom 5:9]

So the ineffectual shedding of Jesus' blood for the lost to remain lost seems anathema to power of God to save.
The REALITY that the blood justifies and not "everyone without exception" is justified compels the Reformed to accept that the blood could not have been shed for "everyone without exception".

However, "all" and "all men" can also mean "some from every tribe, tongue and nation", emphasizing that Jesus is the savior of the World (all people groups) and not just the Jewish Messiah.

(Thank you for the dialogue.)

 

[Josiah]

Josiah only the believers receive the atonement

True, but of course NO ONE HERE believes otherwise. This thread is not about that, not at all.

It's about a new dogma invented by a few later-day radical Calvinists that Jesus did not DIE for all (as the Bible repeatedly states, as the Council of Orange states) but rather He died for ONLY SOME, an invention that as we've seen has no confirming in Scripture, in Christian history or in any Council. Even the Calvinist hero of Dr. Sproul could not actually state the dogma in the video shared but wiggled around for 22 minutes, not even willing to state the dogma, noted that it is the "most controversal" and "least accepted" part of TULIP by Calvinists, and noted that there are Scriptures that state otherwise.

(including non believers) then hell would not exist

Only if you join with these radical, later-day Calvinists in their repudiation of Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide, replacing it only with Solus Christus, denying the role of faith in justification. Yes, Jesus died for all as the Bible so often states. No, not all have faith as he Bible so often states. Those without faith have no means to apprehend the work of Christ, to have it "credited" to them personally to use St.Paul's language.



Here's just a few of the Scriptures that contradict this dogma:


First John 2:2 "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world." "Whole world".


Hebrews 2:9 "by the grace of God he tasted death for everyone. "Everyone"


1 Timothy 4:10 "we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe." "All people".


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


2 Corinthians 5:15 "he died for all" "All"


Hebrews 2:9 "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". "Everyone."


1 Timothy 2:4 "God desires all people to be saved." "All people"


Titus 2:11 "For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people." "All people"


Just a few.... there are more. And note, not just one. Not just from one biblical book or author.


Now, can anyone be the first ever in 2000 years to present even one Scripture that states "Jesus died not for all but rather for ONLY SOME?" Can anyone find a verse relating to His death that even contains the words "only" "few" "some" ?


Now, IF there were verses that stated, "No, Jesus did NOT die for all but for only some" THEN we'd have something to discuss, we'd need to discuss how that relates to the MANY that state that He did die for all. Maybe it would be concluded that "all" doesn't mean that; maybe we'd conclude we have a Law/Gospel issue at play here; maybe we'd even conclude we have a mystery, a paradox, a tension here. This sort of thing certainly exists in theology. But in the absence of any verse that indicates He only died for a few, there's nothing of that sort to discuss. There is no "counter", no "modifying". We have clear Scriptures (many of them), affirmed by the Rule of Faith, affirmed by the Ecumenical Council of Orange (that most Calvinists SAY they accept because it is the affirmation of predestination). This is why Dr. Sproul had to admit this is the most rejected of the aspects of the TULIP invention (I personally don't know a single Calvinist who accepts it; not one) and why he had to wiggle around it for 22 minutes and wasn't even willing to state it.




A blessed Easter Season...


- Josiah




.

 

[RichWh1]

So when Paul wrote that all have sinned, he is referring only to the elect ones Yes ? No? Why?

Wouldn’t this mean that the non elect never sinned? Huh?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MoreCoffee]

I agree that Barnes makes a good case, until you read a commentary that reaches a different conclusion ... then you are back where you started: Does ALL mean "everyone without exception" or does ALL mean "some from every tribe, tongue and nation"?

[2Co 3:2 NASB] 2 You are our letter, written in our hearts, known and read by all men;
[2Co 5:14-15 NASB] 14 For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died; 15 and He died for all, so that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf.
[2Co 9:13 NASB] 13 Because of the proof given by this ministry, they will glorify God for [your] obedience to your confession of the gospel of Christ and for the liberality of your contribution to them and to all,
[2Co 13:13 NASB] 13 All the saints greet you.

Do all these other uses of ALL in the same letter refer to "everyone without exception"? [obviously just "every saint without exception" in the case of 2 Cor 13:13]
I am not attempting to refute Barnes (or you), I am just questioning whether the interpretation methodology is being uniformly applied.

The case for Jesus NOT shedding His blood for the whole world (every person without exception) is not a strong one from direct Scripture. It is an argument resulting as a logical conclusion from other facts which are very strongly supported by scripture.

Jesus WILL raise all that the Father draws [John 6:44]
Many will not spend eternity in Heaven [Mat 7:13]
Salvation is a gift from God [Eph 2:8]
The blood of Jesus justifies and the resurrection of Jesus saves [Rom 5:9]

So the ineffectual shedding of Jesus' blood for the lost to remain lost seems anathema to power of God to save.
The REALITY that the blood justifies and not "everyone without exception" is justified compels the Reformed to accept that the blood could not have been shed for "everyone without exception".

However, "all" and "all men" can also mean "some from every tribe, tongue and nation", emphasizing that Jesus is the savior of the World (all people groups) and not just the Jewish Messiah.

(Thank you for the dialogue.)

I like logic, being a Mathematician by education and an Information Technology chap by employment gives me a strong bias towards logic as a powerful tool of explanation for complex matters. And the doctrine of the atonement is inherently complicated because people have managed to confuse themselves about all sorts of details regarding it. So as I read your post and saw that you wrote

The case for Jesus NOT shedding His blood for the whole world (every person without exception) is not a strong one from direct Scripture. It is an argument resulting as a logical conclusion from other facts which are very strongly supported by scripture.​

I recognised the attraction of logic as a tool to solve the riddle of the complexity of the atonement. Yet for me the atonement is also a mystery - a truth revealed by God and not open to human enquiry outside of the confines of what God chose to reveal about it - and that is an even more powerful tool for discerning the truth about the atonement. So the mystery of the cross, which is what atonement is about, does not yield its place to the forces of logic. And that is why I do not subscribe to either this or that theory about the atonement and it is also why the Church has resisted the temptation to subscribe wholly to one or another of the theories of the atonement that have arisen over the centuries. And this is also why I prefer to treat "all" as retaining its normal meaning unless there really is compelling reason or reasons to shift its meaning to something unusual. And shifting "all people" from its usual meaning to "all sorts of people" is taking an unusual meaning for the phrase. I am not convinced that the examples you cited give compelling reason or reasons to make that shift in meaning.

If I were a glutton for punishment by excessive typing work as a form of punishment then I would answer each passage in sequence and in detail but I am not so I shall just pick the first that you mentioned and see how we go with alternative meanings and the ordinary (or usual) meaning.

[2Co 3:2 NASB] 2 You are our letter, written in our hearts, known and read by all men;​

Let's substitute "all sorts of men" for "all men" and see what we get.

[2Co 3:2 NASB] 2 You are our letter, written in our hearts, known and read by all sorts of men;​

Ad now lets try substituting "every man" for "all men" and see what we get.

[2Co 3:2 NASB] 2 You are our letter, written in our hearts, known and read by every man men;​

Now you tell me which better represents the intended meaning of the words written in Greek?

 

[Andrew]

So when Paul wrote that all have sinned, he is referring only to the elect ones Yes ? No? Why?

Wouldn’t this mean that the non elect never sinned? Huh?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good aim, perhaps atonement can only be redeemed through faith but the atonement itself is offered to all. John Calvin seems to believe this himself.
“Since no man is excluded from calling upon God the gate of salvation is open to all. There is nothing else to hinder us from entering, but our own unbelief.” -John Calvin

 

[Josiah]

Good aim, perhaps atonement can only be redeemed through faith but the atonement itself is offered to all. John Calvin seems to believe this himself.

“Since no man is excluded from calling upon God the gate of salvation is open to all. There is nothing else to hinder us from entering, but our own unbelief.” -John Calvin

That is the position of biblical, historic Christianity. That is the position of the Ecumenical Council of Orange. That is the position of the Rule of Faith (what all Christians believe and affirm - 100% before a few later-day radical Calvinists invented this horrible idea).




.

 

[MoreCoffee]

... the Ecumenical Council of Orange.

The local Council of Orange (France), not considered one of the ecumenical councils.