Jesus died for the sins of the world

[Josiah]

Hey, Josiah and Albion, what parts of Psalm 103 don't you get?

@Doran
@Albion
@Origen
@brightfame52

I "get" every word of it. And affirm every word in Psalm 103.

What you realize, obviously, is that your position is completely, entirely, wholly missing. This psalm nowhere states what you do. There is no "ONLY." The verse does not state that God ONLY loves those who love Him and obey Him. Your position that God ONLY loves those who first love and obey him is not taught in this verse. Your entire position rests on the word "ONLY" which, as we all know, isn't in this verse. And of course means that God would save no one since no dead, unregerate, atheistic unbeliever loves and obeys God.

You are employing a logical fallacy. One illustrated by this: "Ford makes Mustangs, ergo Ford only makes Mustangs."

And of course, as we all know, it does not state, "Jesus did NOT die for all but ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY for some unknown few." And thus does nothing to support your position. And obviously, nothing to prove the historic view as wrong.


Scriptures on this...

Concerning the general issue of God's love...

"God is love." 1 John 1:8

"We love because God first loved us." 1 John 4:19

"Love one another just as I first loved you." John 13:34

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son." John 3:16

and many more like this.


And concerning this and the Cross....

"Not that we love God but that God loved us" 1 John 4:16

"God shows His love for us in that while we were enemies, Christ died for us" Romans 5:8

"You were dead in your sins..." Ephesians 2:1

"He saved us by virtue of His mercy." Titus 3:5

"Christ died for the ungodly." Romans 5:6

And many more like this.


Concerning for whom Jesus died...

"So that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.' Hebrews 2:9

"For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all." 2 Corinthians 5:14

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

"Who gave himself as a ransom for all." 1 Timothy 2:6

"Christ died for the ungodly." Romans 5:6

and many more like them.


Where is the verse that states, "God cannot love anyone who does not FIRST love and obey Him," "God ONLY loves those who first love and obey Him." "Jesus ONLY died for those who first loved and obeyed Him." "Christ ONLY died for the godly." Where are those Scriptures?

God loves NO ONE on the basis of their own merits

And yet you insist the dead, totally deprived, atheistic, enemy of God must have two enormous qualities: Love for God and obedience to Him BEFORE God is capable of love for that dead atheist enemy of God. Do you not consider love and obedience to God good things? Or qualities?

God cannot love evil!

Thus, you've eliminated not only faith but grace. The only people whom Christ could have died for are holy people void of sin. Ironically, people who would need no Savior, no Cross, no grace, no mercy, no forgiveness.

"For by grace you have been saved through faith."

"Not that we love God but that God loved us" 1 John 4:16

"God shows His love for us in that while we were enemies, Christ died for us" Romans 5:8

"You were dead in your sins..." Ephesians 2:1

"He saved us by virtue of His mercy." Titus 3:5

"Christ died for the ungodly." Romans 5:6

And so very, very more Scriptures just like the above.

But not one that states, "God only saves those who are first sinless, love God with all their heart mind and soul, and are obedient to Him." Romans 5:6 and others seems to state the very opposite of that.

you guys are definitely implying that God loves evil!

No. We are agreeing with God in Scripture .... we are affirming God's grace and mercy.... we are affirming that God came to save sinners... that Christ died for the ungodly. We are affirming the principle of forgiveness. I'm surprised these are eliminated by you; it's what Christianity is all about. We affirm God's grace.

"The saying is sure and worthy of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners." 1 Timothy 1:15 Sinners are, by definition, doers of evil. People who have sin. Sin is not holiness, love and obedience to God.

"God shows His love for us in that while we were enemies, Christ died for us" Romans 5:8

"You were dead in your sins..." Ephesians 2:1

"He saved us by virtue of His mercy." Titus 3:5

"Christ died for the ungodly." Romans 5:6

"Enemies" and "ungodly" and "sinners" suggests to me that the ones Christ died for were probably enemies and godless and sinners. Not ONLY people who first loved Him with all their heart and soul and mind, not ONLY people who obeyed Him in all things, not ONLY people who were sinless, holy and righteousness.

Mark 10:18 "No one is good — except God alone. NIV

So, your theology that Jesus died exclusively, solely, only for some FEW.... you either are repudiating sin and this verse you quote OR you are repudiating your theology since there would be no few for Him to die for.


Again, we presented numerous Scriptures that flat-out, verbatim STATES that Jesus died for all. But you claim EVERY ONE OF THESE actually "means" the exact opposite of what they state (God never did get this right). But you have yet to present one Scripture that states what you do, that Jesus did NOT die for all but ONLY (there's the essential word, the word your whole position depends on) for some few."

I challenge you to produce even one Scripture that states, "God ONLY loves sinless, holy people who first love Him with all their heart and soul and mind and who first obey Him in all things." ("ONLY" being the necessary word for your claim).

I challenge you to produce even one Scripture that states, "Jesus ONLY died for those who FIRST loved him, FIRST were sinless and holy, and FIRST were obedient to Him and thus didn't need forgiveness or a Savior." A verse that negates your claim that all are sinners, your claim to total depravity.


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


- Josiah



.

 

[Doran]

That's the theory, all right. It's not the proof--or anything even close to it--that was requested.

THIS, you imagine to be some sort of substantiation for your belief???????

And as for Romans 8:39, it reads as follows:

" Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."

There is absolutely no reference to any Elect in that verse. It is testifying to the love of God which is revealed through Christ Jesus. Who can disagree with the proposition that God's love is made manifest thanks to the presence and the work of Jesus?

But you might choose at this point to reiterate the following: "This makes perfectly good theological sense since God cannot love evil! "

The mistake there is that God is not loving evil. That is your own hypothesis. He is loving his creation, mankind, even though it is sinful. That's why the Son of God came into our world as one of us! Because of divine love. If it were instead as you suggest, God could not have been Incarnated as Jesus of Nazareth...but we all know that he WAS!

God was willing to make it possible for all sinners to be reconciled rather than just die in sin, eternally separated from the Almighty! That's the main theme of everything Christmas, for goodness' sake!

Who is the "US " in Rom 8:39? Santa Claus, his reindeer and his elves? The devil and his seed? Or here's a really wild and crazy idea...Could the "us" (which of course would include Paul) be the people to whom Paul was writing? Did Paul write his epistle to the world: to believers and unbelievers alike? Or did Paul write

Rom 1:7-8
7 To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints:

Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is being reported all over the world.
NIV

It seems to me Paul was writing to the Saints, i.e. God's church! So are you going to tell us that the Body of Christ (the Church) is not God's elect? If they are not, who are God's elect? Are they unbelievers? Or doesn't he have any elect?

Secondly, while I'm at it -- Paul said in v.8 that the saints' faith was being reported ALL OVER the WORLD. Do you understand that as meaning that their faith was being reported to every man, woman and child on the planet, i.e. in the quantitative sense? I mean what else could "all over the world" possibly mean, right?

Also, you don't read too swell. Rom 8:39 says nothing about "through Christ". It states plainly that God's love for "us" (saints, church, elect) is IN Christ Jesus. And this makes perfectly good sense because God's love for the church is grounded in the person and work of His Son. It's precisely because Christ's righteousness is imputed to his saints that God is ABLE to love his saints, even though we're all still sinners.

P.S. The sound of crickets in here is getting pretty loud with the examples I have given such as what v. 8 says above. I'm still waiting to hear your interpretation of Act 21:28 and Lk 2:31, which I brought up in my 886.

In fact, I even mentioned before my 886 that the term" world" in Jn 17:9 cannot possibly be understood in the quantitative sense since Christ very clearly made a distinction between THEM and the WORLD. No one has ever responded to this.

Further, no one has bothered to explain why Christ would omit from his High Priestly prayer in John 17 the very world that God allegedly "so loves" in the quantitative sense in Jn 3:16. Why would Jesus do that? Do you have any clue whatsoever? All I get from you guys is more crickets.

I'm also waiting for an answer on the question I posed in my 887 re Rev 7:9. Is the number that no man can count few, many or all? Again, more crickets.

P.S. God's creation IS evil. So you haven't said anything. Since only God alone IS good, then this immediately implies that ALL mankind IS evil! Ergo, you would have us believe that God loves that which IS evil. And if God loves that which IS evil, then what assurance do any of us have that in the end, God won't love evil more than he supposedly loves what is good? You should look up the definition of "is". It's quite lengthy. The primary definition includes this: "to have a specified qualification or characterization". So, when we say "God is good", we are actually making a statement about his nature. Likewise, when Jesus clearly implied in Mark that all mankind IS evil, Jesus was making a statement about man's nature -- his essence --for all sinful acts proceed from this evil nature. This is precisely why no one can make the false dichotomy between sinful acts and the human heart from which those acts proceed. Scripture never makes such a distinction.

 

[Doran]

@Doran
@Albion
@Origen
@brightfame52

I "get" every word of it. And affirm every word in Psalm 103.

What you realize, obviously, is that your position is completely, entirely, wholly missing. This psalm nowhere states what you do. There is no "ONLY." The verse does not state that God ONLY loves those who love Him and obey Him. Your position that God ONLY loves those who first love and obey him is not taught in this verse. Your entire position rests on the word "ONLY" which, as we all know, isn't in this verse. And of course means that God would save no one since no dead, unregerate, atheistic unbeliever loves and obeys God.

You are employing a logical fallacy. One illustrated by this: "Ford makes Mustangs, ergo Ford only makes Mustangs."

And of course, as we all know, it does not state, "Jesus did NOT die for all but ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY for some unknown few." And thus does nothing to support your position. And obviously, nothing to prove the historic view as wrong.


Scriptures on this...

Concerning the general issue of God's love...

"God is love." 1 John 1:8

"We love because God first loved us." 1 John 4:19

"Love one another just as I first loved you." John 13:34

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son." John 3:16

and many more like this.


And concerning this and the Cross....

"Not that we love God but that God loved us" 1 John 4:16

"God shows His love for us in that while we were enemies, Christ died for us" Romans 5:8

"You were dead in your sins..." Ephesians 2:1

"He saved us by virtue of His mercy." Titus 3:5

"Christ died for the ungodly." Romans 5:6

And many more like this.


Concerning for whom Jesus died...

"So that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.' Hebrews 2:9

"For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all." 2 Corinthians 5:14

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

"Who gave himself as a ransom for all." 1 Timothy 2:6

"Christ died for the ungodly." Romans 5:6

and many more like them.


Where is the verse that states, "God cannot love anyone who does not FIRST love and obey Him," "God ONLY loves those who first love and obey Him." "Jesus ONLY died for those who first loved and obeyed Him." "Christ ONLY died for the godly." Where are those Scriptures?





And yet you insist the dead, totally deprived, atheistic, enemy of God must have two enormous qualities: Love for God and obedience to Him BEFORE God is capable of love for that dead atheist enemy of God. Do you not consider love and obedience to God good things? Or qualities?





Thus, you've eliminated not only faith but grace. The only people whom Christ could have died for are holy people void of sin. Ironically, people who would need no Savior, no Cross, no grace, no mercy, no forgiveness.

"For by grace you have been saved through faith."

"Not that we love God but that God loved us" 1 John 4:16

"God shows His love for us in that while we were enemies, Christ died for us" Romans 5:8

"You were dead in your sins..." Ephesians 2:1

"He saved us by virtue of His mercy." Titus 3:5

"Christ died for the ungodly." Romans 5:6

And so very, very more Scriptures just like the above.

But not one that states, "God only saves those who are first sinless, love God with all their heart mind and soul, and are obedient to Him." Romans 5:6 and others seems to state the very opposite of that.






No. We are agreeing with God in Scripture .... we are affirming God's grace and mercy.... we are affirming that God came to save sinners... that Christ died for the ungodly. We are affirming the principle of forgiveness. I'm surprised these are eliminated by you; it's what Christianity is all about. We affirm God's grace.

"The saying is sure and worthy of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners." 1 Timothy 1:15 Sinners are, by definition, doers of evil. People who have sin. Sin is not holiness, love and obedience to God.

"God shows His love for us in that while we were enemies, Christ died for us" Romans 5:8

"You were dead in your sins..." Ephesians 2:1

"He saved us by virtue of His mercy." Titus 3:5

"Christ died for the ungodly." Romans 5:6

"Enemies" and "ungodly" and "sinners" suggests to me that the ones Christ died for were probably enemies and godless and sinners. Not ONLY people who first loved Him with all their heart and soul and mind, not ONLY people who obeyed Him in all things, not ONLY people who were sinless, holy and righteousness.





So, your theology that Jesus died exclusively, solely, only for some FEW.... you either are repudiating sin and this verse you quote OR you are repudiating your theology since there would be no few for Him to die for.


Again, we presented numerous Scriptures that flat-out, verbatim STATES that Jesus died for all. But you claim EVERY ONE OF THESE actually "means" the exact opposite of what they state (God never did get this right). But you have yet to present one Scripture that states what you do, that Jesus did NOT die for all but ONLY (there's the essential word, the word your whole position depends on) for some few."

I challenge you to produce even one Scripture that states, "God ONLY loves sinless, holy people who first love Him with all their heart and soul and mind and who first obey Him in all things." ("ONLY" being the necessary word for your claim).

I challenge you to produce even one Scripture that states, "Jesus ONLY died for those who FIRST loved him, FIRST were sinless and holy, and FIRST were obedient to Him and thus didn't need forgiveness or a Savior." A verse that negates your claim that all are sinners, your claim to total depravity.


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


- Josiah



.

You don't read my posts at all do you? I never even remotely hinted that God loves only those who FIRST love him. Why do you insist on slandering me constantly with your misrepresentations? Can you produce the post where I said such a thing or even implied it? (Rhetorical question.) See my post 911 and PLEASE quit lying about what I post.


And I have proved that God only loves the righteous, good, holy, God-fearing people. Numerous texts affirm this. AND numerous texts affirm that God hates, abhors, despises or loathes evil people. (I offered to produce those texts, but you haven't requested them yet!) So...can you not connect the dots here? Can God both hate and love someone at the same time and in the same sense?

The "only", in the texts that affirm God love toward people that possess certain moral/spiritual characteristics, is IMPLICITLY understood by all the contrasting passages that affirm God's hatred toward people who do NOT possess any of the moral/spiritual characteristics of their counterparts. You have two distinct classes of scripture: Who God explicitly loves AND who he explicitly hates in space and time. Since the two are mutually exclusive, the ONLY logical inference that can be made is that God loves ONLY the righteous, obedient , faithful, God-fearing, etc., and God ONLY hates those who posses none of those characteristics. To posit otherwise would be to say that God himself is conflicted!

Elementary logic....

 

[Albion]

Who is the "US " in Rom 8:39? Santa Claus, his reindeer and his elves?

Also, you don't read too swell.

You don't read my posts at all do you?

You should look up the definition of "is".

PLEASE quit lying about what I post.

Incidentally, I've read you wondering in print why not all of your questions and propositions get answered. The answer is that people tire, after awhile, of reading smug, flippant, snarky, and deliberately insulting language that is as prominent in those posts as are your reasons for thinking as you do about the subject of the thread.

 

[Doran]

Now, I want to change the pace a little because I have also been falsely accused, either explicitly or implicitly, that I just nilly willy decided to change the definitions of certain terms or phrases that seem teach "all" quantitatively by switching their meaning to a qualitative sense to suit my agenda or presuppositions. Yet, very early on when I first came here I posted Strong's multiple definitions of the Gr. term "kosmos" (world). Strong certainly did not think that the term "world" was to be understood in the unlimited sense all the time. In fact, he explicitly said that it could mean mankind in the "narrow or broad" sense. In other words in the qualitative or quantitative senses, respectively.

So, it occurred to me this morning to check another source I have in my library from Greek scholar W.E. Vine in his classical work An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words. In looking up the term "world", Vine came up with a much more in-depth definition of the word that has seven components to it. What I want to do is simply quote verbatim what those seven parts say, apart from any of the biblical references, since they are numerous. However, if anyone here wants references for any of the parts, just ask and I'll supply them. Here are the seven parts:

1. primarily order, arrangement, ornament, adornment....is used to denote

a. the earth, e.g. the universe....
b. the earth in contrast with heaven
c. by metonymy, the human race or mankind
d. Gentiles as distinguished from Jews
e. the present condition of human affairs in alienation from and opposition to God
f. the sum of total possessions
g. metaphorically of the tongue, as a "world (of iniquity)", expressive of magnitude and variety.

So, regardless of what Josiah and Albion have been telling us, the term "world" is more complex than they would have us believe. They seem to want us to believe, at the very least, that the overly simplistic, default meaning every time this term occurs in scripture = each and every person in the world -- all people in the quantitative sense. But this is the farthest thing from the truth!

I also want to comment on the reference text that Vine provided for part D. I will do that, Lord willing, in a separate post. And as a bonus, I will also choose one the UAB's favorite proof texts that they love to use because they think it supports their position, but which actually makes my point and Vine's, and thus take that highly favored text of theirs and pour it on their heads as burning coals.

 

[Doran]

Incidentally, I've read you wondering in print why not all of your questions and propositions get answered. The answer is that people tire, after awhile, of reading smug, flippant, snarky, and deliberately insulting language that is as prominent in those posts as are your reasons for thinking as you do about the subject of the thread.

Well then...act like an intelligent Christian adult and compose posts with actual substance to it. And quit lying about what I post. An honest poster would question me on something that they're unclear on instead of making pompous, unfounded, slanderous accusations that have no basis in fact. You and your buddy excel in manifesting these dubious "Christian" qualities.

 

[Lamb]

If the participants in this thread continue to attack one another personally I'll be forced to close this thread. Treat one another as if you were speaking to Christ Himself, please.

 

[Josiah]

I never even remotely hinted that God loves only those who FIRST love him.

Well, we have Post 889

Since all the ungodly, unregenerate people in this dark world do NOT fear God, God cannot love them since Psalm 103 tells us multiple times that God loves those who fear him -- who keep his covenant and who obey his precepts.

Just one of the times you made that point. Here again, you imposed the word "ONLY" into the text, although we all know that word isn't there (perhaps because it would be wrong).

And we have Post 993

I have repeated said that God only loves the righteous, good, holy, God-fearing people.

You have stated that repeatedly, you just couldn't come up with a single Scripture that states what you do. I think I know why you are unable.

And of course, the topic here is this: For whom did Jesus die? For all (as the Bible so often, verbatim states - and as the Church Fathers and Councils have affirmed and Christians believed until a tiny number of anti-Calvin folks invented the dogma) OR that no, that's not true, Jesus did NOT die for all but ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY for some FEW. You bring up this point to suggest God would never do that (only for those who love and obey him).

And I have proved that God only loves the righteous, good, holy, God-fearing people.

1. No. The only thing you've proved is that there are no Scriptures that remotely states what you do here. What is missing here is your entire point, the entirety of your theology, your position. There is no "ONLY." You haven't been able to find any Scriptures that state what you do, that state your position. You are just employing a logical fallacy, one illustrated by this: "Ford builds Mustangs, ergo Ford ONLY builds Mustangs." That absurd "logic" is what you are using. You are just IMPUTING the word "only" where it doesn't exist.

2. If God ONLY died for those who are sinless, righteous, good, holy, obedient and God-fearing then He died for no one. "NO ONE is righteous, no, not even one." "For all have sinned" So, either your point is wrong OR Jesus died for no one.

3. Have you read this? “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.” Mark 2:17 Seems to me either you are wrong in your claim or Jesus is wrong here.

Can God both hate and love someone at the same time?

Ever heard of grace?
Ever heard of mercy?
Ever heard of forgiveness?
Ever heard about the One who came to bring us salvation?


If He did that ONLY to those who are righteous, good, holy, sinless, God-fearing and obedient to God (here again, you impute the word "ONLY" where God did not put it) which can only mean He died for no one.

"For by grace you have been saved through faith."

"Not that we love God but that God loved us" 1 John 4:16

"God shows His love for us in that while we were enemies, Christ died for us" Romans 5:8

"You were dead in your sins..." Ephesians 2:1

"He saved us by virtue of His mercy." Titus 3:5

"The saying is sure and worthy of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners." 1 Timothy 1:15 ( Sinners are, by definition, doers of evil. People who have sin. People who are not obedient. People who are not holy and righteous.)

"Christ died for the ungodly." Romans 5:6 (doesn't say "ONLY the godly")

And so very, very more Scriptures just like the above.

You have two distinct classes of scripture: Who God explicitly loves AND who he explicitly hates in space and time. Since the two are mutually exclusive,

Please quote the Scripture that states God CANNOT die for someone about whom He disapproves.

We do have these:

"For by grace you have been saved through faith."

"Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.” Mark 2:17

"Not that we love God but that God loved us" 1 John 4:16

"God shows His love for us in that while we were enemies, Christ died for us" Romans 5:8

"You were dead in your sins..." Ephesians 2:1

"He saved us by virtue of His mercy." Titus 3:5

"The saying is sure and worthy of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners." 1 Timothy 1:15 ( Sinners are, by definition, doers of evil. People who have sin. People who are not obedient. People who are not holy and righteous.)

"Christ died for the ungodly." Romans 5:6 (doesn't say "ONLY the godly")


"Agape" often means to love unconditionally, to love the unlovable. I think you are confusing "apage" with "phileo" But this is just a diversion of yours; the issue is this: Does Scripture state that Jesus died for all OR does it state that Jesus did NOT die for all but ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY for some few?

the ONLY logical inference that can be made is that God loves ONLY the righteous, obedient , faithful, God-fearing, etc., and God ONLY hates those who posses none of those characteristics.

Is this an admission that you have NOT ONE SCRIPTURE that states what you do? If so, we have progress.

If Jesus only died for those who were righteous obedient, sinless, faithful, God-fearing, etc. then He died for no one.

"For all have sinned and fallen short." - Romans 3:23

"The saying is sure and worthy of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners." 1 Timothy 1:15 ( Sinners are, by definition, doers of evil. People who have sin. People who are not obedient. People who are not holy and righteous.)

"Christ died for the ungodly." Romans 5:6 (doesn't say "ONLY the godly")

"God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." Romans 5:8




Now...
Where is your Scriptures that states, "Jesus did not die for sinners."
Where is your Scriptures that states, "God cannot die for those who aren't holy, sinless, God-fearing, righteous and obedient."
Where is your Scriptures that state, "Jesus cannot die for one He disapproves."
Where is your Scriptures that state, "Jesus did NOT die for all but ONLY for some few."



.

 

[Doran]

Part "d" of Vine's definition to the Gr. term "kosmos" while similar to what my understanding has been, since obviously Vine and I both understand there's an important qualitative component to this term, nevertheless bears an important difference. I've been thinking for quite a while that the Jewish mindset would understand the "world" to consist of both Jews and Gentiles. Whereas Vine thinks the Jews would have understood the world to be Gentiles, distinct from the Jews! And when I saw Vine's proof text and that it plainly supported his definition, the Lord immediately brought to mind another proof written by John, and upon reading it, it also supported Vine's understanding. I'm now inclined to believe that Vine's definition of that particular component was more precise than mine! So, first, let's tackle Vine's proof text. I will quote a little bit more than what Vine cited to provide more context.

Rom 11:11-12
11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their fullness bring!
NIV

It's very clear in this passage (especially v.12) that Paul equated "world" with "the Gentiles", and in so doing he very clearly distinguished Jews from Gentiles AND the world! What Paul is very clearly stating here is that the Jews' transgression means riches for the world, and that the Jews' loss means riches for the Gentiles. Obviously, "world" here must be understood in the limited, qualitative sense.

After reading this passage, what the Lord immediately brought to my mind was 1 Jn 2:2 wherein the same distinction is made!

1 John 2:2
2 He is the atoning sacrifice for OUR sins, and not only for OURS BUT also for the sins of the whole world.
NIV

The "but" in this passage looms very large because John speaks of two classes of peoples here: Jews and "the whole world", i.e. Gentiles. The Jews are clearly distinct from "the whole [Gentile] world". Therefore, this last phrase can only be understood in the limited sense, since the apostle excluded the Jews.

Now, I know someone is going to object and say the term Jews is not in this passage. True. But two things: John himself was a Jew and he uses the personal preposition "ours" twice, and secondly John's apostolic ministry was primarily to the Jews (Gal 2:7-9). And most scholars have rightly deduced that John's writings -- all of them -- were primary directed to a Jewish audience. The first epistle of John has a very Jewish flavor to it. Verse 14 in chapter 2 is a very strong indication that his primary audience were Jewish believers because he told them that "the word of God lives in you". Very strange thing to say to a Gentile audience because Gentiles were not entrusted with the OT oracles of God, whereas the Jews were (Act 7:38; Rom 3:2; Heb 5:12; 1Pet 4:11).

But there are more clues! Another huge one is that John was addressing Jewish believers is found if 3:1c, which reads:

The reason the WORLD does not know US is that it did not know him.
NIV

Of course, the Gentile nations of the world didn't know the Jews (meant to be understood in the spiritual sense) since the Gentile nations of the world did not know the Jewish Messiah. How could they? Jesus was sent only to the nation of Israel!

A fourth big clue that John was addressing Jewish believers is found in 1Jn 3:16. Jesus Chris laid down his life for US. Of course Jesus, Scripture tells us, came to save his people from their sin (Mat 1:21) and Jesus instituted the New Covenant in his blood which was poured out first for the Jews (cp. Lk 22:20) . The "you" in this passage being first and foremost those in attendance at the Supper. The Jews at the Last Supper represented Israel and Judah, and thus fulfilled the New Covenant promise in Jeremiah 31.

Therefore, 1 Jn 2:2 does not support the heresy that Christ atoned for the sins of each and every person in the world. It actually strongly supports the truth of limited atonement. The "world" in 1Jn 2:2 can only be understood in the qualitative sense because the writer himself makes the distinction between our/ours and "the whole world". John himself excluded the Jews from "the whole world".

And this might actually be a trademark of sorts with John. After all, Jesus made the world distinct from his disciples in John 17. The latter he prayed for, the former...not so much. And what would this understanding of "world" mean to Jn 3:16!?

 

[Albion]

I hope the thread is closed now. The Scripture clearly "beats" the rationalizations.

 

[Doran]

Post 889


Just one of the times you made that point. Here again, you imposed the word "ONLY" into the text, although we all know that word isn't there (perhaps because it would be wrong).

Post 993


You have stated that repeatedly, you just couldn't come up with a single Scripture that states what you do. I suspect why you are unable.

And of course, the topic here is this: For whom did Jesus die? For all (as the Bible so often, verbatim states - and as the Church Fathers and Councils have affirmed and Christians believed until a tiny number of anti-Calvin folks invented the dogma that no, that's not true, Jesus did NOT die for all but ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY for some FEW. You bring up this point to suggest God would never do that (only for those who love and obey him).







“Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.” Mark 2:17

1. No. You did not give a single Scripture that states that. What is missing here is your entire point, the entirety of your theology, your whole point. There is no "ONLY."

2. If God ONLY died for those who are sinless, righteous, good, holy, obedient and God-fearing then He died for no one. "NO ONE is righteous, no, not even one." "For all have sinned" So, either your point (never stated in Scripture) is wrong OR Jesus died for no one.






Ever heard of grace?
Ever heard of mercy?
Ever heard of forgiveness?
heard about the One who came to bring us salvation?


If He did that ONLY to those who are righteous, good, holy, sinless, God-fearing and obedient to God (here again, you impute the word "ONLY" where God did not put it) which can only mean He died for no one.

"For by grace you have been saved through faith."

"Not that we love God but that God loved us" 1 John 4:16

"God shows His love for us in that while we were enemies, Christ died for us" Romans 5:8

"You were dead in your sins..." Ephesians 2:1

"He saved us by virtue of His mercy." Titus 3:5

"The saying is sure and worthy of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners." 1 Timothy 1:15 ( Sinners are, by definition, doers of evil. People who have sin. People who are not obedient. People who are not holy and righteous.)

"Christ died for the ungodly." Romans 5:6 (doesn't say "ONLY the godly")

And so very, very more Scriptures just like the above.





Please quote the Scripture that states God CANNOT die for someone about whom He disapproves.

We do have these:

"For by grace you have been saved through faith."

"Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.” Mark 2:17

"Not that we love God but that God loved us" 1 John 4:16

"God shows His love for us in that while we were enemies, Christ died for us" Romans 5:8

"You were dead in your sins..." Ephesians 2:1

"He saved us by virtue of His mercy." Titus 3:5

"The saying is sure and worthy of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners." 1 Timothy 1:15 ( Sinners are, by definition, doers of evil. People who have sin. People who are not obedient. People who are not holy and righteous.)

"Christ died for the ungodly." Romans 5:6 (doesn't say "ONLY the godly")


"Agape" often means to love unconditionally, to love the unlovable. I think you are confusing "apage" with "phileo" But this is just a diversion of yours; the issue is this: Does Scripture state that Jesus died for all OR does it state that Jesus did NOT die for all but ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY for some few?







Is this an admission that you have NOT ONE SCRIPTURE that states what you do? If so, we have progress.

If Jesus only died for those who were righteous obedient, sinless, faithful, God-fearing, etc. then He died for no one.

"For all have sinned and fallen short." - Romans 3:23

"The saying is sure and worthy of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners." 1 Timothy 1:15 ( Sinners are, by definition, doers of evil. People who have sin. People who are not obedient. People who are not holy and righteous.)

"Christ died for the ungodly." Romans 5:6 (doesn't say "ONLY the godly")

"God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." Romans 5:8




Now...
Where is your Scriptures that states, "Jesus did not die for sinners."
Where is your Scriptures that states, "God cannot die for those who aren't holy, sinless, God-fearing, righteous and obedient."
Where is your Scriptures that state, "Jesus cannot die for one He disapproves."
Where is your Scriptures that state, "Jesus did NOT die for all but ONLY for some few."



.

Evidently, you do not understand what I wrote in 923. I said that it is to be IMPLICITLY understood that since there are two distinct classes of scripture that speak to who God loves and others that speaks to who he hates, it's impossible that a thrice holy all-knowing God can contradict himself by loving one class of sinners AND hating another class of sinners at the same time and in the same place. Therefore, these two classes of scripture are mutually exclusive to one another and cannot be reconciled. It's to be implicitly understood that LOGICALLY God can ONLY love one class of sinner. and can ONLY hate the other class! So why do you keep asking for explicit proof texts? Even the righteous and godly and God-fearing are STILL sinners -- yet he loves them; but at the same time hates the other class of sinners. How can this be!? I can explain this. Can you? Very clearly, there is an abundance of scriptures that essentially teach that God loves the righteous and hates the wicked -- even though we know from scripture that there isn't even a righteous man living who never sins (Eccl 7:20), and we also know that if anyone breaks one of God's laws he's guilty of all (Jas 2:10) . So, yes...I get all this.

I even stated either yesterday or the day before, as plain as I could, that God sent his Son to die for sinners and at the same time he did not die for sinners. I explained that this was a profound paradox. Since Christ did love and die for one class of sinner in one sense, and did not love and die for the other class of sinner in another sense. Therefore, this does no violence to the Law of Noncontradiction. With all due respect, sir, I can explain this to you but I cannot make you understand it. That is beyond my pay ground. But I can assure you: Paradoxes ABOUND in scripture. But paradoxes can all be logically reconciled.

Tomorrow I will try to tackle another passage in Romans that will further expand on my meaning. So, please try to understand this once and for all: God loves and does not love sinners because the sense in which he does and doesn't is DIFFERENT. And the difference can be summed up in just one word: CHRIST!

Have a good evening, sir.

P.S. But meanwhile between now and then, I would like for you and/or your sidekick Albion to tell me who you think God's elect are. And if you guys believe God actually has an elect people, how did they attain to that status?

 

[Doran]

I hope the thread is closed now. The Scripture clearly "beats" the rationalizations.

Only when scripture is understood in its three-fold context. Anyone can quote a series of single passages and claim that they support their presuppositions. Also, why do you think God has given his image-bearers a rationale mind to think? Even Paul understood that he was to use his God-given abilities to the max since he reasoned incessassantly with his Jewish brethren according to the flesh in trying to win them over to the Faith (Act 17:2; 17:17; 18:4, 19). Even the ancient forefathers used their heads for something other than a clothes rack (Heb 11:19).

 

[MoreCoffee]

Why would Jesus waste his blood on those with no hope of salvation? Those cursed of God?

It is so sad to read your posts.
The Lord is the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, yet you talk of wasting his blood.
Of course, you introduce the concept of wasted blood as an attempt to shame your interlocutors.
But you have so many unsound presuppositions in your posts.
People can become Christ's sheep, it is done by believing him.
You act as if no one can change. Yet you told your own story of change and conversion.
You once did not believe, now you say that you do. Why? Because you started to believe.
People can change and a lesson of the sheepfold and the good shepherd is that people change.
The Pharisees did not change, they would not come, they refused to believe and hence were not the Lord's sheep.
It was by not believing that they showed themselves to be outside the sheepfold.
But you refuse to see it, despite your own experience of change.
That is sad to see.

 

[Josiah]

Part "d" of Vine's definition to the Gr. term "kosmos" while similar to what my understanding has been, since obviously Vine and I both understand there's an important qualitative component to this term, nevertheless bears an important difference. I've been thinking for quite a while that the Jewish mindset would understand the "world" to consist of both Jews and Gentiles. Whereas Vine thinks the Jews would have understood the world to be Gentiles, distinct from the Jews! And when I saw Vine's proof text and that it plainly supported his definition, the Lord immediately brought to mind another proof written by John, and upon reading it, it also supported Vine's understanding. I'm now inclined to believe that Vine's definition of that particular component was more precise than mine! So, first, let's tackle Vine's proof text. I will quote a little bit more than what Vine cited to provide more context.

Rom 11:11-12
11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their fullness bring!
NIV

It's very clear in this passage (especially v.12) that Paul equated "world" with "the Gentiles", and in so doing he very clearly distinguished Jews from Gentiles AND the world! What Paul is very clearly stating here is that the Jews' transgression means riches for the world, and that the Jews' loss means riches for the Gentiles. Obviously, "world" here must be understood in the limited, qualitative sense.

After reading this passage, what the Lord immediately brought to my mind was 1 Jn 2:2 wherein the same distinction is made!

1 John 2:2
2 He is the atoning sacrifice for OUR sins, and not only for OURS BUT also for the sins of the whole world.
NIV

The "but" in this passage looms very large because John speaks of two classes of peoples here: Jews and "the whole world", i.e. Gentiles. The Jews are clearly distinct from "the whole [Gentile] world". Therefore, this last phrase can only be understood in the limited sense, since the apostle excluded the Jews.

Now, I know someone is going to object and say the term Jews is not in this passage. True. But two things: John himself was a Jew and he uses the personal preposition "ours" twice, and secondly John's apostolic ministry was primarily to the Jews (Gal 2:7-9). And most scholars have rightly deduced that John's writings -- all of them -- were primary directed to a Jewish audience. The first epistle of John has a very Jewish flavor to it. Verse 14 in chapter 2 is a very strong indication that his primary audience were Jewish believers because he told them that "the word of God lives in you". Very strange thing to say to a Gentile audience because Gentiles were not entrusted with the OT oracles of God, whereas the Jews were (Act 7:38; Rom 3:2; Heb 5:12; 1Pet 4:11).

But there are more clues! Another huge one is that John was addressing Jewish believers is found if 3:1c, which reads:

The reason the WORLD does not know US is that it did not know him.
NIV

Of course, the Gentile nations of the world didn't know the Jews (meant to be understood in the spiritual sense) since the Gentile nations of the world did not know the Jewish Messiah. How could they? Jesus was sent only to the nation of Israel!

A fourth big clue that John was addressing Jewish believers is found in 1Jn 3:16. Jesus Chris laid down his life for US. Of course Jesus, Scripture tells us, came to save his people from their sin (Mat 1:21) and Jesus instituted the New Covenant in his blood which was poured out first for the Jews (cp. Lk 22:20) . The "you" in this passage being first and foremost those in attendance at the Supper. The Jews at the Last Supper represented Israel and Judah, and thus fulfilled the New Covenant promise in Jeremiah 31.

Therefore, 1 Jn 2:2 does not support the heresy that Christ atoned for the sins of each and every person in the world. It actually strongly supports the truth of limited atonement. The "world" in 1Jn 2:2 can only be understood in the qualitative sense because the writer himself makes the distinction between our/ours and "the whole world". John himself excluded the Jews from "the whole world".

And this might actually be a trademark of sorts with John. After all, Jesus made the world distinct from his disciples in John 17. The latter he prayed for, the former...not so much. And what would this understanding of "world" mean to Jn 3:16!?

Not one of the Scriptures you quote shares your view that Jesus died ONLY for some FEW.
Not one of them remotely states all those Scriptures that specifically and verbatim state that Jesus died for all are wrong.

See post 428.



.

 

[Doran]

It is so sad to read your posts.
The Lord is the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, yet you talk of wasting his blood.
Of course, you introduce the concept of wasted blood as an attempt to shame your interlocutors.
But you have so many unsound presuppositions in your posts.
People can become Christ's sheep, it is done by believing him.
You act as if no one can change. Yet you told your own story of change and conversion.
You once did not believe, now you say that you do. Why? Because you started to believe.
People can change and a lesson of the sheepfold and the good shepherd is that people change.
The Pharisees did not change, they would not come, they refused to believe and hence were not the Lord's sheep.
It was by not believing that they showed themselves to be outside the sheepfold.
But you refuse to see it, despite your own experience of change.
That is sad to see.

That's not what Jesus said in John 10. You've got it 180 degrees backwards. Anyone who believes does so BECAUSE they are Christ's sheep.

And it's a pleasure to make the acquaintance of yet another UAB. Would you mind if I asked you a question? Here it is: Did Jesus die for people he never knew in eternity?

P.S. By the way, Josiah and Albion, feel free to answer as well.

 

[Doran]

Not one of the Scriptures you quote shares your view that Jesus died ONLY for some FEW.
Not one of them remotely states all those Scriptures that specifically and verbatim state that Jesus died for all are wrong.

See post 428.



.

Thanks but I'll pass on 428. Why don't you EXEGETE the two passages I posted last night that supports the Greek scholar Vine's part d. definition? You should be able to prove easily that the writers of these two texts didn't distinguish between Jews and Gentiles/world.

Also, why don't tackle the question I've been asking for a few days about Rev 7:9? Do you think "the great multitude that no one could count" represents a few, many all all people in the world?

 

[Josiah]

Thanks but I'll pass on 428.

Then you've chosen to stop discussion.

Why don't you EXEGETE the two passages I posted last night that supports the Greek scholar Vine's part d. definition?

Because neither - even twisted wildly as you desire - state that Jesus did not die for all but ONLY for some few.

Also, why don't tackle the question I've been asking for a few days about Rev 7:9?

I did. You didn't read it.

Josiah and Albion, feel free to answer as well.

We both have. Several times. Perhaps you didn't read. Or don't care.





.

 

[Doran]

Soooo many times in John's writings he purposely uses the term "kosmos" in a limited sense. Let's look at Jn 7:7. But first, I should remind all that both Strong and Vine admitted to a moral/spiritual component to the term "kosmos". Again, here is what Vine said part e. of his definition:

the present condition of human affairs in alienation from and opposition to God

John 7:7
7 The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify that what it does is evil.
NIV

It would be patently absurd to interpret "world" here in the unlimited, quantitative sense because to do so one would have to include all Jesus' disciples who loved him then, throughout all history and currently! John clearly uses the term in a qualitative sense limiting the world to a particular kind of people -- specifically to those who are alienated from God and in opposition to Him. In other words, God's enemies! God's enemies would certainly hate his Son! Why? Because they subscribe to and embrace the ungodly world order which is ruled by Satan, and is antithetical to all that God is.

Then we have another passage that uses universal sounding terms in a limited, MORAL sense.

Matt 10:21-22
22 All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved.
NIV

So, who here would dare interpret "all men" in the quantitative, unlimited sense? In order for the text to be understood this way, one would have to say that "all men" includes the believers and disciples in Christ as well. They would have to be included. But this would be logically absurd. The disciples would also have to be hating Christ and each other!

By the way Josiah and Albion, are you working on answers for my questions in posts 886 and 887? Also, have either one you figured out an answer to my 931 re God's elect? The silence is getting deafening in here.

 

[Josiah]

Soooo many times in John's writings he purposely uses the term "kosmos" in a limited sense. Let's look at Jn 7:7. But first, I should remind all that both Strong and Vine admitted to a moral/spiritual component to the term "kosmos". Again, here is what Vine said part e. of his definition:

the present condition of human affairs in alienation from and opposition to God

John 7:7
7 The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify that what it does is evil.
NIV

It would be patently absurd to interpret "world" here in the unlimited, quantitative sense because to do so one would have to include all Jesus' disciples who loved him then, throughout all history and currently! John clearly uses the term in a qualitative sense limiting the world to a particular kind of people -- specifically to those who are alienated from God and in opposition to Him. In other words, God's enemies! God's enemies would certainly hate his Son! Why? Because they subscribe to and embrace the ungodly world order which is ruled by Satan, and is antithetical to all that God is.

Then we have another passage that uses universal sounding terms in a limited, MORAL sense.

Matt 10:21-22
22 All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved.
NIV

So, who here would dare interpret "all men" in the quantitative, unlimited sense? In order for the text to be understood this way, one would have to say that "all men" includes the believers and disciples in Christ as well. They would have to be included. But this would be logically absurd. The disciples would also have to be hating Christ and each other!

Once again, your proof that you can find NOTHING in Scripture that states your view, that Jesus died ONLY for some few.

You have nothing.

You are VERY passionate about anything you can dream up and "infer" (often with silly logical fallacies) to deny and repudiate what Scripture says. Okay. So God is wrong (or at least VERY misleading) in EVERYTHING He outright, verbatim STATES on this.... you say He CANNOT be correct... but again, I'll ask again, did God EVER get it right? Since you claim ALL of the Scriptures we present that verbatim state (word for word) what we do are wrong, where did God get it right? Where are the verses where it states, "Jesus did not die for all but ONLY for some few?" All we get from you is proof that you have nothing.... just diversions, red herrings, logical fallacies and occasionally heresies.

By the way Josiah and Albion, are you working on answers for my questions in posts 886 and 887? Also, have either one you figured out an answer to my 931 re God's elect? The silence is getting deafening in here.

Every question you've asked that has ANYTHING REMOTELY to do with the topic here has been answered. Often repeatedly. I hesitate to participate in your evasions, diversions, hijacks and red herrings - but I confess I often have, just to answer the question.

We gave our Scriptures. You don't believe them, you say they cannot be true.
When you have a Scripture that states, "Jesus did not die for all but only for some few." State it. Until then, this is wasting our time.


Let's pretend that all your rants about how God NEVER got it right, that IN EVERY CASE on this matter, in ALL THE NUMEROUS SCRIPTURES ON THIS, what God verbatim states is just not true ("God CANNOT do that")... lies or at least VERY, VERY misleading (indeed, Christianity for over 1500 years was mislead by what God stated so often!) - even if you could prove that, that does NOTHING to substantiate your position that Jesus died NOT die for all but ONLY for some few. Where are those Scriptures for your position - that Jesus did NOT die for all but ONLY for some FEW? Clearly you have nothing. Just abundant doubt about what God can do and a serious convinction that God can be consistently and enormously misleading on a topic.

Until you present that, we have MANY Scriptures that state the opposite of your view. Stated verbatim, word-for-word, in black-and-white, repeated several times. Accepted and believed by the Church Fathers, a Church Council, and Christians for over 1500 years, and also by John Calvin (and still by the overwhelming majority today). And you have.... nothing. Just your disbelief in what God says.... and what you call "logical inferences" (but I truly wonder where you studied logic; most of it is clearly logical fallacies and just plain disbelief).




.

 

[Doran]

Doran said:
Also, why don't tackle the question I've been asking for a few days about Rev 7:9?

Josiah I did. You didn't read it.

In which post did you respond? Number, please.