Jesus died for the sins of the world

[MoreCoffee]

morecoffee



It doesn't have to be. Those Christ died for; their sins have been taken away by His death for them.
[Minor edit by MoreCoffee, just punctuation so I can show how I read the post.]

I disagreed with your post because it treats "sin of the world" as if it said, "sin of the elect". And since that is the matter we're disputing your post is both "begging the question" and "circular reasoning".

 

[1689Dave]

I disagreed with your post because it treats "sin of the world" as if it said, "sin of the elect". And since that is the matter we're disputing your post is both "begging the question" and "circular reasoning".

Have you ever noticed the several times it says God blinded the Pharisees so they could not believe? Or where Jesus says "all that the Father gives to me will come to me" Or how he purchased the church with his own blood. Can't you see how these verses derail universal atonement?

 

[MoreCoffee]

", but by his own blood He obtained eternal redemption for us." Us is those He died for, shed His Blood for. Now He for them provides Eternal Redemption.

The above quote is also "circular reasoning" and "begging the question" because the "us" that is mentioned need not be taken as exhaustive of all who are to be saved; specifically, Hebrews' author intends by "us" those to whom he wrote, namely, Christians who knew something about Hebrew religion, the addressees. But you and I, as we read the passage, and all those living today who read the passage, were not in the author's mind when he wrote. You may wish to argue that he intended to address us but that is you interpreting his words rather than his words saying the thing you think it means. And when you argue from your interpretation to your theological position you beg the question by not allowing the words to be interpreted independent of the theological framework that you accept.

I take the "us" as those to whom the author wrote, and I take them as a subset of "the world" whose sin the Lamb of God takes away.

 

[1689Dave]

The Greek word "World" has a wide area of meanings. In one case it says "God so loved the world". In another case, Jesus says he prays for the elect "but not the world" many still assume he died for. So we can see two meanings of the same English translation of the "world" that contradict each other. If God so loved the universe (the correct translation) meaning the New Heavens and earth, it makes sense when not praying for the world whose sins he did not pay for. "Love not the world" would obviously refer to people. Not the New Heavens and Earth.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Have you ever noticed the several times it says God blinded the Pharisees so they could not believe? Or where Jesus says "all that the Father gives to me will come to me" Or how he purchased the church with his own blood. Can't you see how these verses derail universal atonement?

I do not argue for "universal atonement", that is, from my perspective, a Protestant category. My argument is that Jesus is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. I am content to let there be mystery in the words that God revealed by John the Baptist. I am a Catholic and do not need to penetrate every mystery in the holy scriptures to satisfy a hankering for theological completeness. Being a Catholic I know that Godel's theorem regarding incompleteness in the created universe of Mathematics has an analogy in the creation of which we are a part. Fundamentally, every mystery in the holy scriptures is something that we - human beings - would not know but for God revealing it to us and that means that all we know is what God revealed rather than everything exhaustively implied by what God has revealed. Moses was taught to say to Israel "The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law." Deuteronomy 29:29. Catholic Christians have the humility and the wisdom to admit when our knowledge comes to an end.

 

[1689Dave]

I do not argue for "universal atonement", that is, from my perspective, a Protestant category. My argument is that Jesus is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. I am content to let there be mystery in the words that God revealed by John the Baptist. I am a Catholic and do not need to penetrate every mystery in the holy scriptures to satisfy a hankering for theological completeness. Being a Catholic I know that Godel's theorem regarding incompleteness in the created universe of Mathematics has an analogy in the creation of which we are a part. Fundamentally, every mystery in the holy scriptures is something that we - human beings - would not know but for God revealing it to us and that means that all we know is what God revealed rather than everything exhaustively implied by what God has revealed. Moses was taught to say to Israel "The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law." Deuteronomy 29:29. Catholic Christians have the humility and the wisdom to admit when our knowledge comes to an end.

I see why you won't argue. Universal Atonement is Pelagianism condemned as heresy at Ephesus in 431. Luther went after the Catholic Church when they violated this creed and taught free will instead.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I see why you won't argue. Universal Atonement is Pelagianism condemned as heresy at Ephesus in 431. Luther went after the Catholic Church when they violated this creed and taught free will instead.

And I see why you want to argue. I shall not blame heretics for your choice, it is your own choice to argue this way. You have decided to demand that "world" mean exactly what your stated theology requires it to mean. I will not argue the semantics of Calvinism, from my perspective Calvinism is a heresy to be rejected and so I reject it.

 

[Josiah]

So Jesus started a work but left it unfinished?

@prism


No. He "finished" His perfect life, His sacrificial death, His victorious resurrection. And yup, He did it for all - and thus (we can KNOW) for me.

But no, He did not APPLY it to every individual... that is done in time and by faith. The Bible does NOT say that personal justification depends ONLY on the Cross, it also states it depends on faith - it's not either/or, it's both/and.

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son, that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life." You know the verse. It does not state, "For God so loved some unknown few that He gave His only begotten Son to just those unknown few so they will not parish but have everlasting life whether they have faith in His death for them or spit in His face, denounce and deny that - faith being irrelevant."

I cannot know who are the elect

And that's one of the two HUGE problems with the 16th Century invention of Limited Atonement by those radical, latter-day Calvinists...

1. The theory is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what the Bible so often, so clearly, so undeniably, verbatim states.

2. Since He only died for a few people (odds are, not you or me)... and since He never gave a list of who those lucky few are.... there's no way to know for whom He died and for whom He did not. We are left with guessing if His death is available to US, whether it was for ME. Probably not but could be. It means it's misleading and deceptive to proclaim to someone that Jesus died for them - because He probably didn't. It's deceptive to announce the Gospel to anyone because it probably doesn't apply to them. Kind of mean to teach children about the Cross and Resurrection because the odds are it's not there for them.


According to Limited Atonement, the Bible is wrong (OFTEN! VERBATIM!) when it says Jesus died for all because the opposite is true, Jesus did NOT die for most , He died for only a ffew - and (unfortunately) Jesus didn't list those lucky few for whom Jesus died. We're left to our feelings, our hunches, our wish, our guess, our hope. Knowing odds are that we're wrong. And we can't share the Gospel with anyone because it probably isn't available to them and really would be mean: Like telling them they won the lottery when odds are they did not.

For non Calvinists, for all the rest of us, it's pretty simple. Jesus died for everyone. For all people. And since I'm a people, He died for me. I don't have to assume so... I don't have to hope so... I don't have to guess... I don't have to wonder... if I'm a people, He died for me. Exactly as the Bible SO often, verbatim, word-for-word states. It doesn't just "imply" it. That's not just a possible interpretation. It's what SO many Scriptures verbatim actually state - exactly like that. So, I think it's sound to think it's true. Jesus died for me. Now, also required is faith, and I do trust/rely on His death FOR ME. And I have that faith and I know it's in something for ME (being a people). And I know my faith is not in a phantom, a ghost, a nothing (at least for ME) - faith in vain, I know that trusting His death for me is certain because He died for all people and I'm a people. This exactly what the Bible says. Jesus died for ALL. Those that trust He died for them are saved.


A blessed Advent season to you and yours....


Josiah



.

 

[1689Dave]

And I see why you want to argue. I shall not blame heretics for your choice, it is your own choice to argue this way. You have decided to demand that "world" mean exactly what your stated theology requires it to mean. I will not argue the semantics of Calvinism, from my perspective Calvinism is a heresy to be rejected and so I reject it.

I like to give people alternatives to what they've been taught. Many read the posts so you can relax and not assume I'm here to argue. Your resistance provides info for others to consider.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I like to give people alternatives to what they've been taught. Many read the posts so you can relax and not assume I'm here to argue. Your resistance provides info for others to consider.

Yes, it does. I hope it has a positive influence and leads to a positive outcome - to be specific, I hope it opens eyes to understand that Calvinism's hermeneutic is not the only way to read a bible.

As an addendum I want to state a couple of things:

1. The Catholic Church does not and never has taught "universal atonement". That is a Protestant creation for Protestants to argue about.
2. Free will as the phrase is used in the Catholic Church's documents does not and never has implied anything remotely like Pelagianism.

 

[1689Dave]

Yes, it does. I hope it has a positive influence and leads to a positive outcome - to be specific, I hope it opens eyes to understand that Calvinism's hermeneutic is not the only way to read a bible.

The difference is: universal atonement doesn't save anyone. That's why it is Pelagianism. So you give me an opportunity to compare our systems. You also must save yourself by jumping through the hoops they assign for you to jump through. I believe and live a Holy Life because Jesus purchased my salvation on the cross. He gave me a new heart that does what believers do by nature. No acting here to try to save me. Anyone can see that acting like a Christian to be one is hypocrisy in its purest form.

 

[Josiah]

Universalists say "Jesus always fails".

@1689Dave


Wrong.

Universalism (a split off Calvinism about 300 years ago) agrees with you that faith is irrelevant and moot to personal justification. Like you, these Calvinists believed that if Jesus died for you, you are saved whether you have faith in that OR you spit in His face, denounce Him and deny His death for you. Where they differed from the radical, extreme Calvinists is that they denied the "L" of TULIP and held that Jesus died for all ( as of course everyone knows is exactly what the Bible verbatim states - over and over). SO.... since Jesus died for all (in disagreement with you) and since faith don't matter for anything... they said what you do: "If Jesus died for all then all would be saved." Thus Universalism - that everyone is saved, because faith don't matter and Jesus died for all.

Traditional, biblical Christianity (and every Calvinists personally known to me) KNOWS that the Bible says that Jesus died for all people. Thus, how do I know He died FOR ME? How do I know His death is available for ME personally? Because I'm a people and He died for all people. I don't have to hope He died for me, I don't have to guess or wonder, I don't have to live with the reality that He probably did NOT live for me, the Gospel probably is NOT for me, nope. He died for all people. I'm a people. He died for me;.

And traditional, biblical Christianity disagrees with you and Universalists who insist faith is a joke, irrelevant, moot to anything. We hold that faith is essential to personal justification. We agree with the Bible.

Universal Atonement is Pelagianism

You just keep stating this - ad nausium - NEVER showing ANYTHING to show it's true. Let's try again, yet again, still another time.

Here is the view of Universal Atonement: Jesus died for all. That's it. Four words. The exact, verbatim echo of a LOT of Scriptures. You have not even tried to show that those 4 words - an exact verbatim echo of many Scriptures - is "Pelagianism" And brother, we all know why. Because it's not. Either you can't read those 4 words or you have no idea what Pelagianism is. Just underline which word of those 4 is the definition of Pelagianism. You won't because you can't. You just keep repeating the same silliness, never substantiating it for the reason ALL HERE know - you can't. Those 4 words - the doctrine of Universal Atonement - are not the definition of Pelagianism. You know that. Everyone does. So cut out the falsehood - you are just digging yourself ever deeper in proving to all here that you are dishonest.




.

 

[Josiah]

@MoreCoffee

The Catholic Church does not and never has taught "universal atonement".

You are wrong, my brother.

Read this from CatholicAnswers: Did Christ Die for All?

Read you Catechism, #605, and see this verbatim statement: ""There is not, never has been, and never will be a single human being for whom Christ did not suffer."

Note how Catholicism strongly disagrees with a LIMITED (only for some) death of Jesus.


.

 

[1689Dave]

@1689Dave


Wrong.

Universalism (a split off Calvinism about 300 years ago) agrees with you that faith is irrelevant and moot to personal justification. Like you, these Calvinists believed that if Jesus died for you, you are saved whether you have faith in that OR you spit in His face, denounce Him and deny His death for you. Where they differed from the radical, extreme Calvinists is that they denied the "L" of TULIP and held that Jesus died for all ( as of course everyone knows is exactly what the Bible verbatim states - over and over). SO.... since Jesus died for all (in disagreement with you) and since faith don't matter for anything... they said what you do: "If Jesus died for all then all would be saved." Thus Universalism - that everyone is saved, because faith don't matter and Jesus died for all.

Traditional, biblical Christianity (and every Calvinists personally known to me) KNOWS that the Bible says that Jesus died for all people. Thus, how do I know He died FOR ME? How do I know His death is available for ME personally? Because I'm a people and He died for all people. I don't have to hope He died for me, I don't have to guess or wonder, I don't have to live with the reality that He probably did NOT live for me, the Gospel probably is NOT for me, nope. He died for all people. I'm a people. He died for me;.

And traditional, biblical Christianity disagrees with you and Universalists who insist faith is a joke, irrelevant, moot to anything. We hold that faith is essential to personal justification. We agree with the Bible.






You just keep stating this - ad nausium - NEVER showing ANYTHING to show it's true. Let's try again, yet again, still another time.

Here is the view of Universal Atonement: Jesus died for all. That's it. Four words. The exact, verbatim echo of a LOT of Scriptures. You have not even tried to show that those 4 words - an exact verbatim echo of many Scriptures - is "Pelagianism" And brother, we all know why. Because it's not. Either you can't read those 4 words or you have no idea what Pelagianism is. Just underline which word of those 4 is the definition of Pelagianism. You won't because you can't. You just keep repeating the same silliness, never substantiating it for the reason ALL HERE know - you can't. Those 4 words - the doctrine of Universal Atonement - are not the definition of Pelagianism. You know that. Everyone does. So cut out the falsehood - you are just digging yourself ever deeper in proving to all here that you are dishonest.




.

You are saying all interpret the bible as you do. This is certainly not true. If it was, there would be no denominations.

 

[MoreCoffee]

The difference is: universal atonement doesn't save anyone. That's why it is Pelagianism. So you give me an opportunity to compare our systems. You also must save yourself by jumping through the hoops they assign for you to jump through. I believe and live a Holy Life because Jesus purchased my salvation on the cross. He gave me a new heart that does what believers do by nature. No acting here to try to save me. Anyone can see that acting like a Christian to be one is hypocrisy in its purest form.

You missed an addendum that I added in an edit of my post. I include it here so you can see it.

As an addendum I want to state a couple of things:

1. The Catholic Church does not and never has taught "universal atonement". That is a Protestant creation for Protestants to argue about.
2. Free will as the phrase is used in the Catholic Church's documents does not and never has implied anything remotely like Pelagianism.

 

[1689Dave]

You missed an addendum that I added in an edit of my post. I include it here so you can see it.

free will IS Pelagianism.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I see why you won't argue. Universal Atonement is Pelagianism condemned as heresy at Ephesus in 431. Luther went after the Catholic Church when they violated this creed and taught free will instead.

You replied to a post that included this content. I want to know if you understood the argument and why you did not respond to it.

Being a Catholic I know that Godel's theorem regarding incompleteness in the created universe of Mathematics has an analogy in the creation of which we are a part. Fundamentally, every mystery in the holy scriptures is something that we - human beings - would not know but for God revealing it to us and that means that all we know is what God revealed rather than everything exhaustively implied by what God has revealed. Moses was taught to say to Israel "The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law." Deuteronomy 29:29. Catholic Christians have the humility and the wisdom to admit when our knowledge comes to an end.​

 

[MoreCoffee]

free will IS Pelagianism.

I do not think you know what Pelagianism really is.

 

[MoreCoffee]

free will IS Pelagianism.

Here is a functional definition of pelagianism:

Pelagianism is a Christian theological position that holds that the original sin did not taint human nature and that humans by divine grace have free will to achieve human perfection. Pelagius (c. 355 – c. 420 AD), an ascetic and philosopher from the British Isles, taught that God could not command believers to do the impossible, and therefore it must be possible to satisfy all divine commandments. He also taught that it was unjust to punish one person for the sins of another; therefore, infants are born blameless. Pelagius accepted no excuse for sinful behaviour and taught that all Christians, regardless of their station in life, should live unimpeachable, sinless lives.​

As can be seen, the specific claim is that human free will is sufficient in and of itself to achieve perfection. This is a heresy that is rejected by the Catholic Church. Your posts do not take note of the meaning of Pelagianism.

 

[1689Dave]

Here is a functional definition of pelagianism:

Pelagianism is a Christian theological position that holds that the original sin did not taint human nature and that humans by divine grace have free will to achieve human perfection. Pelagius (c. 355 – c. 420 AD), an ascetic and philosopher from the British Isles, taught that God could not command believers to do the impossible, and therefore it must be possible to satisfy all divine commandments. He also taught that it was unjust to punish one person for the sins of another; therefore, infants are born blameless. Pelagius accepted no excuse for sinful behaviour and taught that all Christians, regardless of their station in life, should live unimpeachable, sinless lives.​

As can be seen, the specific claim is that human free will is sufficient in and of itself to achieve perfection. This is a heresy that is rejected by the Catholic Church. Your posts do not take note of the meaning of Pelagianism.

You still wind up in the same place. Salvation by works dictated by the Church and never found in scripture.