Jesus died for the sins of the world

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Since faith is a gift, why aren't all given that faith?

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

@prism
@Albion
@1689Dave


This video is 32 minutes long (and thus requires some time and attention span) but it's very helpful...



In perhaps half of modern Protestantism, there is a debate. It's between two new, extreme and radically opposed voices.

1. Calvinism. Actually, this comes more from a few radical followers of John Calvin who took Calvin's view to "the logical conclusion." TULIP is the "logical extension" of Calvin's thought (even though it at points contradicts John Calvin).
2. Arminius. Leaning a bit on Pelagianism, he stressed free will. It all finally depends on self.

Both of these "schools" tried to develop a LOGICAL explanation to issues in justification, to create a LOGICAL "answer" to questions people ask about justification. Both tried to theorize WHY some are saved and some not. And both succeeded! The problem is: Both rest on denying a lot of Scriptures and make for a complete lack of assurance, a "terror of the conscience."

In a lot of Protestant websites and seminaries, this DEBATE among these two opposite views is enormous! Probably 95% on the Arminianism side, maybe 5% on the Calvinist side. All it's broken into slogans parroted endlessly with no hope - or desire - for resolution. It just goes on and on... endlessly.... with the same exact arguments repeated endlessly, flying past each other. And often with a lot of logical fallacies, as well as essential denials of what the Bible obviously says.

It's entirely about LOGIC. Interesting, because until the 16th century, theologians did not speak so much of "doctrine" but of Mysteries.... they saw themselves as "stewards of the mysteries of God".... things not necessarily "logical" to our fallen, sinful brain, maybe not "neat and clean" but true simply because the words in the Bible are true. All of them. It was okay to say, "I can't really wrap my puny brain around this - but that's okay, God knows more than I do." The Mystery of the Trinity, the Mystery of the Two Natures and a LOT more are all based on this willingness to embrace that God's truth doesn't need to make sense to us, it just needs to be true.

The DEBATE really didn't start in the late 16th Century among some Protestants.... the debate happened earlier (Augustine, Pelagius, etc.) but the church largely rejected both. The enormous debate between these two groups quickly got more and more extreme, each developing arguments against the other, each getting more and more extreme. Until what we see today.




Continues in next post....



.
 
Last edited:

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
@prism


Continuing from above (post 1081)....



1. We know that people are saved by God’s grace alone through faith in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We further know that such saving faith is something that we cannot produce in ourselves; rather it is a gift of God worked in sinful and spiritually dead man by the power of the Holy Spirit working through the Word.​


1 Corinthians 2:14 The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Ephesians 2:8-9 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith – and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God – not by works, so that no one can boast.
1 Corinthians 1:17-18 For Christ … [sent me] to preach the gospel — not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
Romans 10:17 Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ.
Colossians 2:13 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ.



2. We know that God earnestly desires all people to be saved.​


Ezekiel 18:30b-32 “Repent! Turn away from all your offenses; then sin will not be your downfall. Rid yourselves of all the offenses you have committed, and get a new heart and a new spirit. Why will you die, O house of Israel? For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent and live!”
1 Timothy 2:3-4 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.



3. We know that those who are saved (by being given personal faith) were chosen by God in Christ from before the creation of the world.​


2 Timothy 1:9 who has saved us … – not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time.
Ephesians 1:5 he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will.
Romans 8:28-30 And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.
2 Thessalonians 2:13-14 But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth. He called you to this through our gospel, that you might share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.



4. We know that those who are not saved have only themselves to blame.​


Matthew 23:37 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your childrentogether, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.
Ezekiel 33:11 Say to them, `As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, O house of Israel?’
Proverbs 1:24 But since you rejected me when I called and no one gave heed when I stretched out my hand.


Continues in next post....



.
 
Last edited:

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
@prism


Continues from the post above (# 1082)



Here’s the big question: How do we reconcile these statements? If God wants everyone to be saved, and people are saved only by the power and grace of God, why isn’t everyone saved?



This is the Crux Theologorum: Why are some saved and not others?​



Two popular, modern, human, "logical" attempts to answer this question. They are:​


1. Calvinism: which says, “Because Jesus Christ died only for the chosen or ‘elect’. They are very small percentage of people (God desiring most to fry in hell). If you are one of the elect (the lucky few), you will eventually come to faith in the Gospel and be saved; if not, well God glorifies himself by condemning most people (and odds are, that's you) to Hell. (this is the historic position of Reformed churches such as Presbyterian and Reformed church, as well as some Baptists).

2. Arminianism: which says, “Because it’s a question of free will. Every dead, unregerate person has the capacity to choose to believe in Jesus and follow him or not. Those who choose Jesus are saved. Those who do not are damned.” (This is the historic position of Methodist and Pentecostal Churches, and the present position of most US Evangelical, Baptist and nondenominational churches.)


++ The problem with both positions is that they deny clear Scripture.

Both have to declare some Scriptures to be wrong. The Calvinist denies that God really wants all to be saved. The Arminian makes a fallen human’s decision to believe in Jesus and follow him the final factor, denying that man is dead in sin and that salvation is entirely the work of God. Both positions, unfortunately, take the focus of faith off the Gospel of Christ.


++ And the problem with both positions create a "terror of the conscience" (as Luther put it).


1. The Calvinist really doesn’t need to trust in the Gospel. His focus is taken off what Jesus did; and the big questions in his life are, “Did God choose me?” and “Am I one of the elect?”

2. The Arminian really doesn’t need to trust the Gospel either. His focus is also taken off what Jesus did; and the big question in his life is, “Did I decide for Jesus?” or “Did I choose Jesus?” Or, stated another way, “Did I do my part?”

And here’s where the failure of both Calvinism and Arminianism is revealed: sooner or later every Christian wants to find some kind of assurance of their salvation. Eventually every Christian will ask, “How do I know for sure that I am saved? How can I tell?” And here’s the problem: neither the Calvinist nor the Arminian can simply look to the cross and their Savior for assurance. Why not? Because the work of Christ on the cross for the Calvinist is only helpful if he’s one of the elect – and he doesn’t know that for sure. Likewise, the work of Christ on the cross is helpful for the Arminian only if he properly decides for Jesus and chooses to follow him with sufficient faithfulness – and of that he can never be quite certain. So, since neither can look to Christ for assurance, they must look someplace else. And oddly enough, both will end up looking in the same place. Both know from the Scripture that people are saved by faith, and that saving faith produces good works. So they end up looking for the proof of their election (Calvinist) or the sincerity of their decision for Jesus (Arminian) in their own lives. The question then becomes: “Do I see ample evidence of the fruits of faith in my life?” Or, stated another way, “Am I doing enough good works to confirm my faith?”

Unfortunately, there’s no comfort in EITHER of these. Such an examination will always lead either to despair or to self-righteousness. If they’re honest with themselves, they will see lots of sin, and few and flawed good works; and so be convinced of their damnation. If they’re not so honest, they may close their eyes to their many sins and deceive themselves into believing that they’re doing well enough in their Christian walk, and smugly assume they’re saved. Notice that neither is looking to Christ for assurance of their salvation. Both have made the assurance of saving faith a question of their subjective evaluations of their own works.


BOTH create a "logical" answer... but they are both unbiblical and ultimately terrifying.



How do we resolve this dilemma? We don’t. Why not? Because Scripture does not give us the answer. Yup, it's exactly that simple. We let what God says simply stand. And believe.​



So...​

If a person is saved, it is entirely the work of God.​

If a person is not saved, it is entirely the fault of the person.​



But someone will protest: “That doesn’t make sense!” To which we respond, “That’s right, it doesn’t make sense—at least not to us. But then, it doesn’t have to make sense to us to be true." We reject that if we can't wrap our puny, fallen, limited brains about something, then it can't be true and God must be wrong in what He verbatim states in Scripture.​


Isaiah 40:13 Who has understood the mind of the LORD, or instructed him as his counselor?
Isaiah 55:8-9 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the LORD. “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.
Deuteronomy 29:29 The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law.
Romans 11:33-34 Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! “Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?”

We come to the same point the early church did: There are some questions our human brains ask, but we simply don't have an answer that our puny brains understand. It's MYSTERY. God calls us to be "stewards of the mysteries of God. He doesn't not call us to deny a lot of what He said so that God seems to be logical and so that He agrees with me.

Fortunately for us, assurance of salvation is found only in the objective Gospel. By leaving the question unresolved to human satisfaction, God forces our faith to rest on what Christ has done for us. So, when struggling with the question, “How do I know for sure that I am saved?” we can boldly answer, “Because Jesus Christ died for my sins and rose again for my justification.” Letting the paradox stand directs the doubting soul to Christ and his work alone where it belongs.

Finally, it’s worth noting one more faulty attempt to resolve this paradox that is sometimes put forth by well intentioned but erring teachers. It’s an attempt to synthesize the election of God from eternity past with the so-called “free will” of the Arminian. The basic notion is that God foresees those who will one day come to faith in Jesus by the exercise of their free will, and in view of their proper choice he elects to save them. Theologians who support this view sometimes use the Latin phrase and say that God elects people intuitu fidei; that is, “in view of their faith”. The mistakes inherent in this idea are fairly obvious. First, it’s clear that such “election” on God’s part is not really election at all. He is not choosing or foreordaining anything. He is simply ratifying and supporting the decision of the individual that he foresees will be made in time. Secondly, salvation in this scheme is still entirely left up to a fallen, spiritually dead person’s choice. Therefore all the errors and subsequent problems related to Arminianism remain.

It is, of course, very tempting to seek some resolution to the paradox that is the Crux Theologorum. But the simple facts are these: God has not revealed to us the answer to the question. And all human attempts to resolve the problem must first deny part of what God has plainly revealed, and their answers ultimately direct a person’s faith away from the work of Jesus on the cross to something else. Therefore it is best to simply accept what God has said about this issue, trust in Christ alone, and leave the resolution of what seems to be a contradiction to the limited mind of man to God who is all wise.


Sooo... @prism ... it's a good question but it's one the Bible doesn't answer. And both common modern "answers" that PEOPLE theorize flat out contradict what God says. IF we hold that God is smarter than we are... IF we hold that God likely knows more about this than we do.... then it's easy to simply leave the question as unanswered. We know what God has told us: God desires all to be saved... Jesus died for all..... faith apprehends/applies/replies on that Cross for us.... God gives faith but not to all. As Lutherans are fond of saying, "God gets the last word."



A blessed New Year to you and yours...


.
 
Last edited:

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,760
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Is not the lack of faith (which saves) a sin that condemns?
No.
John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
...which says that it's the absence of Faith that condemns.
 

prism

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 26, 2022
Messages
711
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
It's entirely about LOGIC. Interesting, because until the 16th century, theologians did not speak so much of "doctrine" but of Mysteries.... they saw themselves as "stewards of the mysteries of God".... things not necessarily "logical" to our fallen, sinful brain, maybe not "neat and clean" but true simply because the words in the Bible are true. All of them. It was okay to say, "I can't really wrap my puny brain around this - but that's okay, God knows more than I do." The Mystery of the Trinity, the Mystery of the Two Natures and a LOT more are all based on this willingness to embrace that God's truth doesn't need to make sense to us, it just needs to be true.

The DEBATE really didn't start in the late 16th Century among some Protestants.... the debate happened earlier (Augustine, Pelagius, etc.) but the church largely rejected both. The enormous debate between these two groups quickly got more and more extreme, each developing arguments against the other, each getting more and more extreme. Until what we see today.
What we see today is PostModernism with its rejection of absolutes leading back to Rome and its 'Mysteries'.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
What we see today is PostModernism with its rejection of absolutes leading back to Rome and its 'Mysteries'.

No, what we see today is the rejection of Mystery and the authority of God and Scripture, and the substitution of man - our thoughts, our theories, our "answers" to "our questions". Man's "logic" trumping God's Word. It's a return to paganism and a rejection of God and His Authority.


BTW, one of the themes of the Reformation was a REJECTION an repudiation of all the human "theories" that Rome invented in the Middle Ages, it's lack of willingness to embrace Mystery and the Authority of Scripture. Luther and Calvin both called for a return to Mystery and a repudiation of all those scholastic inventions. Three quotes from Luther "We must be bold where Scripture is bold and silent where it is silent." "God always has the last word - even when that is silence." "Humility is the foundation of all good theology."




.
 

prism

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 26, 2022
Messages
711
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
We come to the same point the early church did: There are some questions our human brains ask, but we simply don't have an answer that our puny brains understand. It's MYSTERY. God calls us to be "stewards of the mysteries of God. He doesn't not call us to deny a lot of what He said so that God seems to be logical and so that He agrees with me.
Mystery in the NT deals with what was once hidden and is now revealed through the Apostles and Prophets (Eph 3:5). It is not something that remains hidden.
Fortunately for us, assurance of salvation is found only in the objective Gospel. By leaving the question unresolved to human satisfaction, God forces our faith to rest on what Christ has done for us. So, when struggling with the question, “How do I know for sure that I am saved?” we can boldly answer, “Because Jesus Christ died for my sins and rose again for my justification.” Letting the paradox stand directs the doubting soul to Christ and his work alone where it belongs.
My faith rests in Jesus and His redemptive work. How do I know it is/was for me? Because in time, He opened my eyes and heart to His Person, changing my attitude from one that despised and mocked God to one that loves and serves Him. From one who walked in the darkness of the occult to the light of understanding His Word. So you see there is both an objective and subjective side when it comes to 'assurance'. Being born again carries it's own weight of assurance...

2Co 5:17 (NKJV)
17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.

1Jn 2:20 (NKJV)
20 But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things.
 

prism

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 26, 2022
Messages
711
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
No, what we see today is the rejection of Mystery and the authority of God and Scripture, and the substitution of man - our thoughts, our theories, our "answers" to "our questions". Man's "logic" trumping God's Word. It's a return to paganism and a rejection of God and His Authority.


BTW, one of the themes of the Reformation was a REJECTION an repudiation of all the human "theories" that Rome invented in the Middle Ages, it's lack of willingness to embrace Mystery and the Authority of Scripture. Luther and Calvin both called for a return to Mystery and a repudiation of all those scholastic inventions. Three quotes from Luther "We must be bold where Scripture is bold and silent where it is silent." "God always has the last word - even when that is silence." "Humility is the foundation of all good theology."




.
Luther was an advocate of 'ad fontes', an appeal to the original sources (mainly Scripture in it's original languages). The Jews didn't deal with 'Mystery' and neither should we, but neither should we go beyond Scripture.
 

prism

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 26, 2022
Messages
711
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
@prism
@Albion
@1689Dave


This video is 32 minutes long (and thus requires some time and attention span) but it's very helpful...



In perhaps half of modern Protestantism, there is a debate. It's between two new, extreme and radically opposed voices.

1. Calvinism. Actually, this comes more from a few radical followers of John Calvin who took Calvin's view to "the logical conclusion." TULIP is the "logical extension" of Calvin's thought (even though it at points contradicts John Calvin).
2. Arminius. Leaning a bit on Pelagianism, he stressed free will. It all finally depends on self.

Both of these "schools" tried to develop a LOGICAL explanation to issues in justification, to create a LOGICAL "answer" to questions people ask about justification. Both tried to theorize WHY some are saved and some not. And both succeeded! The problem is: Both rest on denying a lot of Scriptures and make for a complete lack of assurance, a "terror of the conscience."

In a lot of Protestant websites and seminaries, this DEBATE among these two opposite views is enormous! Probably 95% on the Arminianism side, maybe 5% on the Calvinist side. All it's broken into slogans parroted endlessly with no hope - or desire - for resolution. It just goes on and on... endlessly.... with the same exact arguments repeated endlessly, flying past each other. And often with a lot of logical fallacies, as well as essential denials of what the Bible obviously says.

It's entirely about LOGIC. Interesting, because until the 16th century, theologians did not speak so much of "doctrine" but of Mysteries.... they saw themselves as "stewards of the mysteries of God".... things not necessarily "logical" to our fallen, sinful brain, maybe not "neat and clean" but true simply because the words in the Bible are true. All of them. It was okay to say, "I can't really wrap my puny brain around this - but that's okay, God knows more than I do." The Mystery of the Trinity, the Mystery of the Two Natures and a LOT more are all based on this willingness to embrace that God's truth doesn't need to make sense to us, it just needs to be true.

The DEBATE really didn't start in the late 16th Century among some Protestants.... the debate happened earlier (Augustine, Pelagius, etc.) but the church largely rejected both. The enormous debate between these two groups quickly got more and more extreme, each developing arguments against the other, each getting more and more extreme. Until what we see today.




Continues in next post....



.
Well I watched it. As far as the tension between Arminius and Calvin goes, I noticed in the alleged conundrum Calvinists have with the verse “God is not willing that any should perish”, he didn’t handle the Calvinists explanation that it refers to different ‘groups’ of people. Also, in all of Scripture we see God as the ‘first mover’ or ‘initiator’. Joel Biermann, being Jewish, I wonder how he takes Luther’s scathing diatribes against the Jews in his later years..and yes I would go Lutheran if I didn’t tend towards Scripture. (But it probably wasn’t predestined to be. :) )
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Mystery in the NT deals with what was once hidden and is now revealed through the Apostles and Prophets (Eph 3:5). It is not something that remains hidden.

@prism


True enough. In theology, it also means truths embraced but not understood. Orthodox/traditional theology speaks of the "Mystery" of the Trinity, the "Mystery" of the Two Natures, the "Mystery" of Inspiration, etc. But those days seem largely past.

Until the 16th Century, the corpus of our Christian beliefs was spoken of as "the mysteries of God." Or even "the mysteries of faith." Later, we began to speak of this as doctrine or theology.

But man tends to think highly of himself (goes back to the Garden). Self tends to see self as really smart, and God often, well, not so much. People like to cast self as BIG and God as well, smaller than He is. And so there is an urge to force God to think like we do and perhaps even to agree with self. There certainly ARE questions that naturally arise from Scripture and thought about God. And I don't see anything wrong with that. The problem, IMO, is when self appoints self to answer those questions and then demand that God (and everyone else) agrees with them, that God should be as smart as they are. Therein lies the problem.



prism said:
Joel Biermann, being Jewish,

LOL! Where in the world did you read that? That's hilarious!



prism said:
Joel Biermann, being Jewish, I wonder how he takes Luther’s scathing diatribes against the Jews in his later years..


A myth... made up by Adolf Hitler... but people have kept alive ever since.

See....





.
 
Last edited:

prism

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 26, 2022
Messages
711
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
LOL! Where in the world did you read that? That's hilarious!
I'm essentially going by the name and facial features, forgive me if I am wrong.
A myth... made up by Adolf Hitler... but people have kept alive ever since.
 

prism

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 26, 2022
Messages
711
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
True enough. In theology, it also means truths embraced but not understood. Orthodox/traditional theology speaks of the "Mystery" of the Trinity, the "Mystery" of the Two Natures, the "Mystery" of Inspiration, etc. But those days seem largely past.

Until the 16th Century, the corpus of our Christian beliefs was spoken of as "the mysteries of God." Or even "the mysteries of faith." Later, we began to speak of this as doctrine or theology.

But man tends to think highly of himself (goes back to the Garden). Self tends to see self as really smart, and God often, well, not so much. People like to cast self as BIG and God as well, smaller than He is. And so there is an urge to force God to think like we do and perhaps even to agree with self. There certainly ARE questions that naturally arise from Scripture and thought about God. And I don't see anything wrong with that. The problem, IMO, is when self appoints self to answer those questions and then demand that God (and everyone else) agrees with them, that God should be as smart as they are. Therein lies the problem.
Agreed
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes


The author of this article in the "Evangelical" magazine Christianity Today totally misses, is that "Jew" and "Jewish" to Luther (and pretty much everyone before the 19th Century) referred to people of a certain RELIGION. It generally did not mean a certain race. It COULD (descendants of Abraham) mean a race but mostly by Hebrews and typically not by Christians. Luther, it seems, never used it in the racial way.

How do we know that?

1. Because he fully and passionately embraces FULLY the descendant of Abraham who was baptized and now Christian. He accepts such as fully Christian and never refers to such as "Jewish" or "Converted Jew"or "Jewish Christian."

2. His "rant" (and it was horrible) is against a theology, not a race. He decries the repudiation of grace and the Cross, the denial of Jesus as the Son of God and the Savior. He says nothing about them as a race.

3. His "rant" (and it was horrible) wasn't leveled just at Jews. While no one quotes him on such (and that's good), he said equally bad things about Muslims (regardless of their race). Race had nothing to do with it. ALL who rejected Christ and denied him got his wrath. Some might say from God, too.

It was not Luther but a French anthropologist in the 19th Century would FOR THE FIRST TIME IN HISTORY comes up with the idea of the Hebrews being an inferior race (regardless of whether such was a Christian, Jew, Muslim, agnostic or atheist). What HITLER did was embrace the absurd view of this French anthropologist... and combine that with the horrible eugenics popular in the early 20th Century (also in the US) and then impute both to Luther, who knew neither and was not speaking of a race at all but of faith (and the lack thereof).

Now, no one does (or should) defend Luther's language and the things he said on these occasions (BTW, he often said very good things about Jews, too - but he's never quoted there). This is NOT the way to treat others - even those who repudiate our Savior. There are many things Luther said that were horribly wrong - not only elements of his society and time that we should understand in that historic and social light - but just horribly wrong. No one believes otherwise. BUT in this case, it seems many have bought Hitler's error. They are confusing a French anthropologist with Luther. Luther knew nothing of racial hatred and eugenics - both ideas invented much later than he. He DID at times hold to a horrible hatred of those who repudiated and denied the Savior and Gospel he held so dear.


Now, back to the thread....




.
 
Last edited:

prism

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 26, 2022
Messages
711
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
He DID at times hold to a horrible hatred of those who repudiated and denied the Savior and Gospel he held so dear.
Yet holding to predestination and grace alone? Yes that was horrible.
Now, back to the thread....
ok fine, I thought it ended up being an unsolvable tension or a 'mystery' of sorts.
 

brightfame52

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 28, 2022
Messages
1,149
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
The truth of limited atonement is vital to the Christian Gospel, there's no Gospel without it. See 1 Cor 15:3. It refers specifically to the Death of Christ on the Cross, which death fully satisfied the law and justice of God for not all human beings but only for a certain group, the elect of God, Chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world.

Now let's get one thing understood, when i speak of limited atonement, i don't mean by any means that Christ atoning death is limited in its power, but that its limited in that it doesn't cover or apply to everyone, but only applies to and covers the elect or chosen of God or the Church of God in Christ, or Gods Sheep.
 

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
32,649
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
The truth of limited atonement is vital to the Christian Gospel, there's no Gospel without it. See 1 Cor 15:3. It refers specifically to the Death of Christ on the Cross, which death fully satisfied the law and justice of God for not all human beings but only for a certain group, the elect of God, Chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world.

Now let's get one thing understood, when i speak of limited atonement, i don't mean by any means that Christ atoning death is limited in its power, but that its limited in that it doesn't cover or apply to everyone, but only applies to and covers the elect or chosen of God or the Church of God in Christ, or Gods Sheep.

So God didn't so love the world? That's not Gospel.

The entire world fell into sin. Jesus died for all because that's what a loving God does.
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,760
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Now let's get one thing understood, when i speak of limited atonement, i don't mean by any means that Christ atoning death is limited in its power, but that its limited in that it doesn't cover or apply to everyone, but only applies to and covers the elect or chosen of God or the Church of God in Christ, or Gods Sheep.
I think we've understood that all along.

But the idea of the Atonement being limited to an arbitrarily chosen Elect is the sticking point.

Despite what you've said, Scripture seems to take the view that Christ died for the sins of mankind, not just for his Elect (who, if God truly chose his Elect from before all eternity and not on account of anything in them, wouldn't need for there to be any Sacrifice of the Cross, etc. from Him since their salvation was just a matter of God decreeing it).
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
The truth of limited atonement is vital to the Christian Gospel, there's no Gospel without it.

There is no Gospel with it.



See 1 Cor 15:3. It refers specifically to the Death of Christ on the Cross, which death fully satisfied the law and justice of God for not all human beings but only for a certain group, the elect of God,

We're still waiting for the Scripture that states, "No, Jesus did not die for all (as God so often stated in Scripture) bur ONLY for the elect."

Supporters of this horrible invention of some Anti-Calvin theologians around 1600 have insisted that verse exists but so far, none of them has found it. We know why.



Here are just some of the Scriptures that verbatim, flat-out, literally STATE that Jesus died for all. for everyone, for the whole world:

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

John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Hebrews 2:9 But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

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

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

2 Corinthians 5:15 And he died for all

2 Corinthians 5:19 That is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.

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

There are several more.


Here are the Scriptures that state, "No, Jesus did not die for all but rather ONLY for ______________."


Crickets.




.

 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,760
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
The truth of limited atonement is vital to the Christian Gospel, there's no Gospel without it. which death fully satisfied the law and justice of GodSee 1 Cor 15:3. It refers specifically to the Death of Christ on the Cross, for not all human beings but only for a certain group, the elect of God, Chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world.
Fifteen different Bible translations of that verse use almost identical wording. Here is the NRSV translation:

"For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures"

Please point us to the part in the verse which says in any way that Christ died on the Cross "not for all human beings but only for a certain group."
 

brightfame52

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 28, 2022
Messages
1,149
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
So God didn't so love the world? That's not Gospel.

The entire world fell into sin. Jesus died for all because that's what a loving God does.
God loved a particular world, the world of His Own Elect Jn 13:1

Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end

The rest of the world He didnt love. Yes preaching God loved His own elect is Gospel, and what that love did and accomplished for them He loved.
 
Top Bottom