Jesus died for the sins of the world

[Albion]

Thanks for tacitly admitting that you really don't want to understand what any one particular passage is teaching, even though you use it as a proof text.

P.S. Christ died for all the Father has given to Him in eternity. (Oh yeah...that would include the OT saints, as well.) And just who has the Father given to Christ? Again, see Rev 5:9. If you think Christ died for others that His Father in eternity did not will to give him, then please provide a proof text. But if you do believe that Jesus died ONLY for those given to him by his Father...AND you still believe that Christ died for each and every person in the world, then you must believe in universal salvation!

For the umpteenth time, the Atonement does not mean, imply, or require, Universal Salvation.

For that matter, universalists who consider themselves to be Christians do not base their belief on Rev 5:9 or some convoluted misunderstanding of the Sacrifice of the Cross, anyway.

There are a handful of other verses that can be seen as suggesting universal salvation, but these are not compelling, and the number of verses that seem clearly to teach the existence of a hell, that some people will be lost, and etc. are much more numerous and more definite.

 

[Albion]

Two things: Can you find any prayer in scripture that closely resembles this "universal" prayer for all?

You lost your argument.

It was refuted with the evidence.

In addition, you have several times reworded your claim since you first posted it, attempting to water it down to where it might possibly be irrefutable. At first it was "Does anyone do that? Do you?" Then it became "Why would they?" Then it was "Provide examples." Then it became "Yes, but I don't care for the prayers that were provided." And now we have "But can we find anything in Scripture that is similar to the examples?" Well, yes we can, even though that's irrelevant to the challenge you issued, but then you will find another reason to complain.

Your claim was dead wrong and yes, you've seen evidence of that.

Time for you to try a different subject.

 

[Doran]

Josiah said:
@Doran (not that you'll read this)


No. Obviously not.

If you prove that Scripture nowhere proves that Jesus is God, then you have not proven ergo He is not. Much less that He must be a Martian or ghost. There IS at least (at least!) one "third position" (as you put it): Scripture doesn't expressly say. And of course there are others, too. For example, the point you've suggested - that He died for no one (actually, you've unintentionally made your best case for that option). Others: He died for men but not women. He died for Catholics but not Protestants. He died for people then but now those alive now. But your position is: Jesus died ONLY for the Elect, ONLY for "the sheep" Disproving that He died for all does not prove ergo He died for the Elect (it just makes that less likely). Insisting it's not "all" does not prove "just a few."

If I prove from scripture that Jesus isn't God because scripture doesn't reveal that, then I have falsified the antithesis, which would be that Jesus is God. It matters not a whit what else Jesus may be since the only object to the investigation was to prove that he isn't one particular entity, i.e. God.

Also, as I demolish various passages that you think teach "all" in a distributive sense, then I will have proved that Jesus died for FEWER than all, most especially because of all the MANY passages which stand in sharp contrast to "all" in the quantitative sense, and because of the passages that explicitly state for whom Christ died (two classes of scripture). Again, the Law of Excluded Middle most certainly applies here because we're limiting our investigation to divine revelation, and the bible most assuredly teaches that Jesus died for SOMEONE -- at the very least for MANY (to use biblical language). Therefore, the issue boils down to the simple question: For whom did Christ die: For all, quantitatively or for FEWER than all? Of course, we could argue endlessly if the "fewer than all" = a number so great that no man could count, or whether Christ died for as few as one person. But this isn't the point. The point is what I succinctly stated in my above question. It truly boils down to the "Many or All" question -- or if you prefer to the "Fewer than all" or "All" issue.

 

[Albion]

Also, as I demolish various passages that you think teach "all" in a distributive sense,

Coming up with a contrary meaning for "all" has been tried before. It still is nothing but what the speaker--you, for one--would like it to mean.

You might just as well argue that it really, really means "nobody" or "just the residents of Philadelphia" as to try the approach you tried on us.

 

[Doran]

For the umpteenth time, the Atonement does not mean, imply, or require, Universal Salvation.

For that matter, universalists who consider themselves to be Christians do not base their belief on Rev 5:9 or some convoluted misunderstanding of the Sacrifice of the Cross, anyway.

There are a handful of other verses that can be seen as suggesting universal salvation, but these are not compelling, and the number of verses that seem clearly to teach the existence of a hell, that some people will be lost, and etc. are much more numerous and more definite.

Well then...You AGREE that Christ only died for those who the Father gave to him? And we know that the Father did not give him each and every person in the world. Therefore, Jesus could not have possibly died for each and very person in the world....UNLESS....UNLESS you postulate that He died for those that his Father never willed in eternity for his Son to have -- that He never willed to SAVE. In other words, Jesus died for those OUTSIDE his Father's will --- apart from his Father's will. And such a reprehensible, blasphemous theory would present serious theological problems.

Ball's in your your court, Bunky...

P.S. Since you mentioned "more numerous and definite", I would make the same exact argument for the numerous passages that teach that God hates, loathes, despises or abhors the wicked. These passages stand in sharp contrast to all the "all" passages that you read your presuppositions into such as Jn 3:16, etc.

 

[Doran]

Coming up with a contrary meaning for "all" has been tried before. It still is nothing but what the speaker--you, for one--would like it to mean.

You might just as well argue that it really, really means "nobody" as to try the approach you did.

Greek language scholars would disagree with you. As would writers of scripture when their writings are understood in context. Also, the vast majority of words in the world have more than one meaning. Isn't it the height of naivete to narrow certain words or phrases down to just one definition?

And if you insist that "all" = all quantitatively ALWAYS, then get busy and reconcile your favorite pet passages with all he "many" passages. The onus is on you to resolve all those conflicts.

P.S. Why don't you tackle my post 886?

 

[Doran]

I have a few minutes, so let's jump into 1Timothy 2:

1 Tim 2:1-7
1 First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, 2 for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. 3 This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time. 7 For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle ( I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.
ESV

Basics: Paul was a Jew and Timothy, to whom he was writing, was also a Jewish believer.

The "all people" in v. 1 is to be understood in the limited sense, since v.2 clearly reveals who Paul had in mind -- and it certainly wasn't each and every person in the world! He qualified what he meant in v. 2 by limiting his exhortation to "for kings and all who are in high positions" -- in other words Gentile political rulers, especially throughout the Roman Empire where Paul preached the gospel. After it all, it was the various vassal kings, governors, princes, etc. throughout the empire that largely determined the quality of life for the people over which they ruled -- i.e. peaceful, quiet life, etc. Also, Paul would greatly covet peaceful conditions throughout the empire which would make his missionary work easier.

Verse 4 talks about God desiring "all people" to be saved. And verse 6 says that Christ "gave himself as a ransom for all". These two "universal" sounding phrases can no more be understood quantitatively than v.1, since Paul was clearly alluding to Gentile rulers in v.1 and then he reinforces where his mindset is in v. 7 by reminding Timothy that he (Paul) was appointed a preacher and an apostle and a teacher of the Gentiles. Paul was never commissioned by Christ with an impossible task: to preach to gospel to each and every person under the sun. No! He was sent to various Gentile nations or provinces in the Roman empire.

So what Paul is saying in vv. 4 and 6 is that God desires salvation for the Gentiles, which harmonizes with a huge body of scripture; therefore, Christ's death also served as a ransom to those Gentiles. Since it is ONLY the Gentiles that is on Paul's mind here, the two phrases in vv. 4 and 6 can only be understood in the qualitative sense, since Paul did not have Jews in mind.

Context, context, context. You UAB's should try it sometime. You might like the results one day.

 

[Doran]

You lost your argument.

It was refuted with the evidence.

In addition, you have several times reworded your claim since you first posted it, attempting to water it down to where it might possibly be irrefutable. At first it was "Does anyone do that? Do you?" Then it became "Why would they?" Then it was "Provide examples." Then it became "Yes, but I don't care for the prayers that were provided." And now we have "But can we find anything in Scripture that is similar to the examples?" Well, yes we can, even though that's irrelevant to the challenge you issued, but then you will find another reason to complain.

Your claim was dead wrong and yes, you've seen evidence of that.

Time for you to try a different subject.

I think when Paul said pray for "all people", he meant pray meaningfully, i.e. biblically. You'd be hard-pressed to find such a trite, meaningless prayer in scriptures. You could start with the psalms. Any meathead can pray such nonsense. Here's another useless "prayer": Lord, I pray that the whole world have a Happy Christmas.

P.S. Oh yeah, Lord, I almost forgot...even though much of the much world doesn't celebrate Christmas, they should have one anyway.

PPS: You lost youer argument because I refuted your interpretation by pointing out that Paul qualified "all" in 1Tim 2:1-2.

 

[Josiah]

In other words, you have NO answers to legitimate theological questions to support your limited atonement falsehood.

@Doran


You've already admitted you have "passed" on what I've posted to you. But for any other who may actually read things...


1. You have shown you have NOTHING in Scripture that states your position that Jesus did NOT die for all but ONLY for some FEW. You've offered several Scriptures - every word of which I agree with - but nothing that supports your view. Not one that says Jesus did not die for all but ONLY for some unknown FEW.

2. The historic view believes what God SO often, SO clearly, verbatim, flat-out, in black-and-white STATES. As glorious Gospel. The Church Fathers and a Church Council affirmed it. So did Luther and Calvin. The Bible is actually more clear on this, it says this more often and more boldly, that other dogmas you believe such as the Trinity and Two Natures of Christ and inspiration/normative nature of Scripture.

3. Your repudiation of all these verbatim Scriptures and of the faith of Christians for over 1500 years (and of the VAST majority for 2000) years is clearly based on "God CANNOT do" as He said. It's clearly not based on ANY Scripture whatsoever, but on what YOU think is a "logical inference" made by your superior brain, your inerrant logic.... something no one for 1500 years could match. But no Scripture. No history. No Fathers. No Council. Nothing.

4. Since you have NOTHING (except your claim of a superior, brilliant mind), you make the SILLY argument that if you can show the historic, biblical view is not 100% solid, you thus have substantiated your view. Absurd. Silly. You probably are just giving credence to Jesus dying for no one. And just as likely, ONLY folks then but not today, or ONLY men but not women, or ONLY adults but not kids, or ONLY Catholics but not Protestants.... "ONLY SOME FEW' as your view states just depends on where you put the ONLY because as you've proven no Scripture on this topic says a thing about ONLY or FEW...

However, adding words to scripture (explicitly or implicitly) is expressly forbidden in scripture (Deut 4:2; 12:32; Prov 30:6; Rev 22:18-19). You might want to take these injunctions to heart.

You should. Your position REQUIRES adding words to the texts, words such as "NOT" and "ONLY." Indeed, YOUR ENTIRE POSITION rests wholly on the word "ONLY" which you can't find in ANY Scripture on this topic. Not one. Nowhere. You just add the word - cuz your brilliant, amazing, superior brain (no one for 1500 years could match it) says that is "INFERRED" (in other words, not there - just CHANGING what God said). Same goes for the "FEW" you impose on Scripture where "all" is changed to "just some FEW" and "many" is replaced with "just a few."

Your horrible view (invented by a tiny few Anti-Calvin men in the late 16th Century) completely, wholly, completely depends on words never there.... so you just put them in (by virtue of your superior brain to Christians), pure unmitigated eisegesis, "NOT" "ONLY" "FEW"

Christ died for all the Father has given to Him in eternity.

But of course, you can find NOTHING in Scripture that states that. Just quote the verse that states, "Christ died ONLY for those whom the Father gave to him in all eternity." When you find the verse, let us know and we can talk. Until then....

Prove that I believe that Christ didn't die for many.

This anti-Calvin invention states that Jesus died for just a FEW. I've read and heard some guessing it's as high as 20% of humans (based on the current position that 20% of humans today claim to be Christians and/or were baptized) but of course for most of the past 2000 years, it's been much lower than that. In the First Century, it perhaps was 1% or so. In Jesus' day, less than that. The Elect are FEW. Maybe somewhere between less than 1% to maybe as high as 20%?

Now, if you hold that the Christ died for 60% or 75% or 95% of the human population, please so state (you've not done so before) and list all the Scriptures that so states. And since anything over 20% or so would likely indicate He died for a lot more than the Elect, there goes that point (which I realize you've carefully avoided). And give the Scripture that tells us how we know who that 1% to 20% of the population is, especially before they have faith. Otherwise, it seems a moot point (except to prove no one can know for whom Christ died, just probably not me).

P.S. But before we part company, won't you please provide the post number wherein you allege that you answered my inquries re Rev 7:9? I'm always up for a good belly laugh.

It would do no good. You don't read or consider anything posted to you.


But to summarize my considerable reply (proving we all are just wasting our time with you and Dave).... Just to show I lack the wisdom of those who have concluded posting anything to you is a complete waste of time and really bad stewardship....

1. The verse nowhere supports your horrible invention that Jesus did NOT die for all but only, exclusively, solely for some few.

2. St. John is sharing a VISION he had of heaven. The context here is not those for whom Christ died. You are not only ignoring that this offers NOTHING - absolutely nothing - to prove your horrible invention but this text has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

3. John's VISION of heaven includes some things. You seem to be once again imposing your superior brain over the Holy Spirit, insisting that his vision CANNOT be true, thus it's not. How do you KNOW he didn't see this? How do you KNOW what He saw cannot be true? How do you KNOW John is not telling the truth here?

4. I don't share your rubric of "reading" Scripture.... subjecting it to YOUR superior brain of you individually.... and deciding if whether what God says can or cannot be true. Your incredible egoism and your individualism are disturbing.

5. Let us know how Rev. 7:9 proves that Jesus died ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY for some FEW and how it identifies EXACTLY who is included in that "FEW" .

I certainly believe Rev 7:9.

Me, too. And note it says NOTHING about Jesus not dying for all but only, exclusively, solely for some few. It's not even remotely about the topic. You LOVE to throw in Scriptures that do not substantiate your view and often have nothing to do with the topic. Red herrings. Diversions.



We shared our MANY Scriptures. I know, your superior brilliance to Christians for over 1500 years insists what God so often states on this "cannot" be true... but we've given MANY Scriptures that verbatim STATE our position - the wonderful, gospel position of traditional, historic Christianity (affirmed by an Ecumenical Church Council). You have given nothing. Just your "cannot be" opinion, your absolute eisegesis of adding words to the texts (words absolutely essential to your position) but words you prove aren't actually there and that entirely change the verse (often reversing it). You just leave us wondering how God can ALWAYS be SO wrong (He never gets it right on this topic!) and how YOU can unquestionably be SO right (you speak of your superior abilities). But, you said you'd accept proof texts. And we agreed. We gave some. You haven't.

.

 

[Doran]

I have asked you UABs several times if you think Jesus died for those he never knew. What I got for an answer was crickets. (What else is new?) Now, I asked this question because John 10 teaches that Jesus knows all his sheep. He knows them so well that he not only knows each of them by name but knows them like he knows his Father! It certainly sounds like Jesus has a very deep, personal, intimate knowledge of his sheep -- all those who the Father has given to him. The Gr. word "ginosko" which is translated "know" is quite an interesting word. It has so many nuances to it that Vine devoted more than a page worth of definitions to it, citing numerous bible references for each. So, I'm just going to quote a portion of the definition from Vine that certainly applies to John 10:

In the NT "ginosko" frequently indicates a relation between the person knowing and the object known; in this respect, what is known is of value and importance to the one who knows, hence the establishment of a RELATIONSHIP (emphasis mine).

Strong says about this word: a prolonged form of a primary verb; to "know" (absolutely) in a great variety of applications and with many implications...

So Strong, too, recognizes that there are numerous nuances to this word. But I like how Strong cuts to the chase by recognizing that quite often this word is used in its strongest sense, i.e. to "know absolutely" or to know fully, completely, which is certainly the sense in which this term is used several times in John 10.

The KJV translators clearly understood the implications and applications to this word when they translated Mat 1:25 and Lk 1:34 as "knew". Joseph never "knew" Mary prior to the birth of Jesus. Both of these passages teach that Mary and Joseph never "knew" each other in the sense of sexual intimacy prior to Jesus' birth. They never had a sexual relationship prior to his birth. This term "ginosko" is so strong that it can rightly be gleaned from other passages in scripture that there is also an affectional quality to this word in additiion to what I stated above.

So....one may still be wondering why I bring this line of inquiry to bear on Jesus' atonement. Well...Jesus made quite a big deal about how well he knows his sheep that he explicitly laid down his life for -- just as well as he does his own Father! However, there is another passage in the gospels that teaches that Christ certainly did not know a category of people -- EVER!

Matt 7:23
23 Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you . Away from me, you evildoers!'
NIV

And, yes, the same root verb is used here: "ginosko".

So, Jesus just as clearly stated in this text that he NEVER KNEW [in all eternity] evildoers. Wow! WOW! But yet, He knew his sheep (God's elect, perhaps?) personally, intimately, deeply and even affectionally. But...But...how could that possibly be since there are no sinless sheep in this world? Is there a contradiction here?

So...I'm counting on some UAB here to clear up this confusion. AND my initial question remains: Did Jesus also die for all the evildoers in the world that He never knew? He would have had to under unlimited atonement scheme.

Looking forward to your replies...

 

[Josiah]

I have asked you UABs several times if you think Jesus died for those he never knew.

Answered.

Now, I've asked you Anti-Calvin's several times, do you have any Scriptures that state "Jesus did not die for all but rather ONLY for some few."

Now, I asked this question because John 10 teaches that Jesus knows all his sheep. He knows them so well that he not only knows each of them by name but knows them like he knows his Father! It certainly sounds like Jesus has a very deep, personal, intimate knowledge of his sheep -- all those who the Father has given to him. The Gr. word "ginosko" which is translated "know" is quite an interesting word. It has so many nuances to it that Vine devoted more than a page worth of definitions to it, citing numerous bible references for each. So, I'm just going to quote a portion of the definition from Vine that certainly applies to John 10:

Addressed.

The context here is faith, not the Cross.

I guess we're suppose to assume that here again, Jesus was being SO misleading (according to you never did God get this right). We're suppose to assume what Jesus was suppose to say (but goofed) is "I will die ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY for my sheep - which is a tiny few." He kind of goofed when He spoke about having that special relationship with those who have faith in the Cross....

So Strong, too, recognizes that there are numerous nuances to this word.,

Is one of them, "the sole, exclusive, singular objects of His death?" If so, quote him on that.

Well...Jesus made quite a big deal about how well he knows his sheep that he explicitly laid down his life for

Yes. Of course, Everyone agrees with that.

Now, stop the diversion. The issue is not whether God has a special relationship with Christians, it's not whether Jesus died for Christians or Republicans or Protestants or blondes. Your position is that Jesus did NOT die for all (as the Bible so often states) BUT rather, instead, ONLY, SOLELY, EXCLUSIVELY for some FEW. I've read John Chapter 10 numerous times. And it never remotely states that Jesus did not die for all but ONLY for some few. You love to quote Scriptures that nowhere state your view.

Matt 7:23 23 Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you . Away from me, you evildoers!' NIV

It does not state, "I will tell them plainly, I did not die for you, only for a few people that I'll never identify, so away with you!"

Yes, without faith, one is not forgiven, not saved and yup, not heaven-bound. That's the historic, biblical faith.

Now, quote for us the verse that states, "Jesus did not die for all but rather ONLY for some few."

Doran said:


Christ died for all the Father has given to Him in eternity.

But of course, you can find NOTHING in Scripture that states that. Just quote the verse that states, "Christ died ONLY for those whom the Father gave to him in all eternity." When you find the verse, let us know and we can talk. Until then....

Doran said:


Prove that I believe that Christ didn't die for many.

This anti-Calvin invention states that Jesus died for just a FEW. I've read and heard some guessing it's as high as 20% of humans (based on the current position that 20% of humans today claim to be Christians and/or were baptized) but of course for most of the past 2000 years, it's been much lower than that. In the First Century, it perhaps was 1% or so. In Jesus' day, less than that. The Elect are FEW. Maybe somewhere between less than 1% to maybe as high as 20%?

Now, if you hold that the Christ died for 60% or 75% or 95% of the human population, please so state (you've not done so before) and list all the Scriptures that so states. And since anything over 20% or so would likely indicate He died for a lot more than the Elect, there goes that point (which I realize you've carefully avoided). And give the Scripture that tells us how we know who that 1% to 20% of the population is, especially before they have faith. Otherwise, it seems a moot point (except to prove no one can know for whom Christ died, just probably not me).

Doran said:


I certainly believe Rev 7:9.

Me, too. And note it says NOTHING about Jesus not dying for all but only, exclusively, solely for some few. It's not even remotely about the topic. You LOVE to throw in Scriptures that do not substantiate your view and often have nothing to do with the topic. Red herrings. Diversions.



We shared our MANY Scriptures. I know, your superior brilliance to Christians for over 1500 years insists what God so often states on this "cannot" be true... but we've given MANY Scriptures that verbatim STATE our position - the wonderful, gospel position of traditional, historic Christianity (affirmed by an Ecumenical Church Council). You have given nothing. Just your "cannot be" opinion, your absolute eisegesis of adding words to the texts (words absolutely essential to your position) but words you prove aren't actually there and that entirely change the verse (often reversing it). You just leave us wondering how God can ALWAYS be SO wrong (He never gets it right on this topic!) and how YOU can unquestionably be SO right (you speak of your superior abilities). But, you said you'd accept proof texts. And we agreed. We gave some. You haven't.

.

 

[Doran]

Josiah: @Doran


You've already admitted you have "passed" on what I've posted to you. But for any other who may actually read things...


1. You have shown you have NOTHING in Scripture that states your position that Jesus did NOT die for all but ONLY for some FEW. You've offered several Scriptures - every word of which I agree with - but nothing that supports your view. Not one that says Jesus did not die for all but ONLY for some unknown FEW.

2. The historic view believes what God SO often, SO clearly, verbatim, flat-out, in black-and-white STATES. As glorious Gospel. The Church Fathers and a Church Council affirmed it. So did Luther and Calvin. The Bible is actually more clear on this, it says this more often and more boldly, that other dogmas you believe such as the Trinity and Two Natures of Christ and inspiration/normative nature of Scripture.

3. Your repudiation of all these verbatim Scriptures and of the faith of Christians for over 1500 years (and of the VAST majority for 2000) years is clearly based on "God CANNOT do" as He said. It's clearly not based on ANY Scripture whatsoever, but on what YOU think is a "logical inference" made by your superior brain, your inerrant logic.... something no one for 1500 years could match. But no Scripture. No history. No Fathers. No Council. Nothing.

4. Since you have NOTHING (except your claim of a superior, brilliant mind), you make the SILLY argument that if you can show the historic, biblical view is not 100% solid, you thus have substantiated your view. Absurd. Silly. You probably are just giving credence to Jesus dying for no one. And just as likely, ONLY folks then but not today, or ONLY men but not women, or ONLY adults but not kids, or ONLY Catholics but not Protestants.... "ONLY SOME FEW' as your view states just depends on where you put the ONLY because as you've proven no Scripture on this topic says a thing about ONLY or FEW...

Josiah, my friend, you should take to heart this proverb:

Eccl 5:3, 7
3 As a dream comes when there are many cares,
so the speech of a fool when there are many words .
7 Much dreaming and many words are meaningless.
NIV

You spend so many words with so little content. You waste more time and band width by whining and complaining, flailing your arms wildly in the air, and presenting straw man and red herring arguments instead of saying anything of real substance. All you do is chase after the wind, which is meaningless (Eccl 2:11, 17, 26).

As stated so often you must PROVE your thesis is correct and you cannot do so by merely quoting what you think are proof texts; You must PROVE within the three-fold context of the bible that your interpretation of your so-called proof texts are correct. Anything less than this is circular reasoning! What you see in a passage as X, someone else can see in the same passage as Y. Therefore, you must PROVE that your X interpretation is consistent and in harmony with the three-fold context of scripture. It's obvious that neither you or Albion are able to do this.

I have not added one word to Holy Writ, whereas you and your sidekick do very often, such as with Jn 3:16; Heb 2:9; 1Tim 1:1, 1Jn 2:2, etc. You guys constantly READ your personal presuppositions into these passages, instead of exegeting them. Conversely, when I employ the term "only" in my posts, it's ONLY (forgive the redundancy) on the basis of a large number of specific and explicit contrasting classes of scripture whereby one class exists and the other does not. For example, when I say God "only" loves the godly, the God-fearers, the righteous, the pious, God-lovers, etc., I logically and reasonably deduce that by a TWO-fold observation whereby this can be the ONLY logical inference because A.) The existence of passages that specifically and explicitly teach this truth AND B) by the CONSPICUOUS ABSENCE of any specific and explicit passages to the contrary, e.g. God also loves all sinners, all evil people, all evildoers, the wicked, etc. I have repeatedly asked you guys to give but one passage that explicitly and specifically states that God loves such people! None have been forthcoming!

Ditto for the atonement. There is not one passage in scripture that teaches God died for evil-doers, for the wicked as well as for the elect. Christ died for ONLY one class of sinner: The elect! He did not die for those outside of Christ. You must provide the passages that specifically and explicitly teach that Christ died for those outside of Christ. Conversely, I have numerous passages that LIMIT Christ's atonement either explicitly or implicitly to God's chosen people -- to his elect -- to his covenant people (John 10, John 17, Act 20:28, 1Cor 6:20; 723; Eph 5:2, 25, Gal 3:13-14, Tit 2:14; 1Jn 3:16 etc., etc. -- to cite but a few! So...in light of such passages AND in the ABSENCE of any that specifically and explicitly teach otherwise, it's eminently reasonable to conclude that Christ died ONLY for those who were given to him in eternity by His Father. And that number of the Redeemed cannot be counted (Rev 7:9). (So much for your "unknown few" straw man. The bible speaks nowhere to such an imagined, fanciful, pathetic paucity. )

As stated the other day, if you cannot provide the kind of defense (I just enumerated) against the rigors of an exegetical and theological, biblically-based investigation and inquiry into these issues, then this speaks volumes to the utter intellectual and biblical impoverishment of your system.

 

[Josiah]

@Doran


As stated so often you must PROVE your new Anti-Calvin invention is correct by merely not quoting even one Scripture that states your position, not one that states Jesus did NOT die for all but ONLY for some unidentified few.

You waste more time by whining and complaining, flailing your arms wildly in the air, and presenting straw man and red herring arguments and logical fallacies instead of showing that your new invention is what the Bible states. Y

You waste more band width by go on and on and on telling us what God CANNOT do, how everything He says on this topic is wrong (or at least very misleading; indeed billions of Christians are mislead by it and always have been), how God never did get this right.

All you do is chase after the wind, which is meaningless (Eccl 2:11, 17, 26).

I have not added one word to Holy Writ, whereas you and your sidekick do very often, such as with Jn 3:16; Heb 2:9; 1Tim 1:1, 1Jn 2:2, etc.

Since you have not one verse that actually shares you new horrible invention, you just insist God CANNOT do what Scripture repeatedly states, that the words CANNOT mean what Christianity has accepted for 2000 years, to be brillient like you, we need to put a "NOT" in front before "all" in every verse, "NOT" before "everyone", "NOT" before the word "world" , "ONLY" in front of "elect" and "sheep" and forgiven. In other words, you must employ extreme radical eisegesis even to show the historic gospel is wrong.


We note the CONSPICUOUS ABSENCE of any specific and explicit passages that state Jesus did not die for all but rather, instead, only for some few.


to the contrary, e.g. God also loves all sinners, all evil people, all evildoers, the wicked, etc. I have repeatedly asked you guys to give but one passage that explicitly and specifically states that God loves such people! None have been forthcoming!

Christ died for ONLY one class of sinner: The elect! He did not die for those outside of Christ.

I guess we must accept this because while you've proven God never remotely said that, and it seems no one before those Anti-Calvin men invented their horrible theory, no one was as brillient as you and thus never noted God's terrible omission in not actually stating the truth there.

But the reality (all but it seems you sees) is the CONSPICUOUS ABSENCE of any specific and explicit passages that states Jesus died ONLY for the Elect. He certainly did die for them but what is conspicuous and obvious is that your horrible position is entirely, wholly missing. No "ONLY,"

I have numerous passages that LIMIT Christ's atonement either explicitly or implicitly to God's chosen people -- to his elect -

You have. And I've agreed with every such verse you've offered. But try to stay on topic. I think we've all tired of running down all your irrelevant rabbit holes, your endless diversions, your countless red herrings.

Save you and us all this nonsense, all the diversions. Just list the verses that state, "Jesus did not die for all but rather, instead, ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY for some FEW." All these red herrings and diversions of yours just waste out time. All you do is chase after the wind, which is meaningless (Eccl 2:11, 17, 26).

it's eminently reasonable to conclude that Christ died ONLY for those who were given to him in eternity by His Father.

Maybe (although an incredibly weak point). But to quote you, what is required is "specific and explicit passages that states that."

Perhaps things can seem "reasonable" but simply aren't what God says and perhaps not true. IMO, God likely is smarter than you. IMO, God is not subject to your brain (even in spite of your claim to great superiority and brilliance).

.

 

[Doran]

quote]Doran: Now, I asked this question because John 10 teaches that Jesus knows all his sheep. He knows them so well that he not only knows each of them by name but knows them like he knows his Father! It certainly sounds like Jesus has a very deep, personal, intimate knowledge of his sheep -- all those who the Father has given to him. The Gr. word "ginosko" which is translated "know" is quite an interesting word. It has so many nuances to it that Vine devoted more than a page worth of definitions to it, citing numerous bible references for each. So, I'm just going to quote a portion of the definition from Vine that certainly applies to John 10:[/quote]

Josiah: Addressed.

The context here is faith, not the Cross.

I guess we're suppose to assume that here again, Jesus was being SO misleading (according to you never did God get this right). We're suppose to assume what Jesus was suppose to say (but goofed) is "I will die ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY for my sheep - which is a tiny few." He kind of goofed when He spoke about having that special relationship with those who have faith in the Cross....

John 10 covers a lot more than just faith. How about this:

John 10:11
11 "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep
NIV

And,

John 10:15
and I lay down my life for the sheep.
NIV

And,

John 10:17
17 The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life — only to take it up again.
NIV

And,

John 10:18
18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again.
NIV

So...if my count is right, five times in this passage it's stated that he lays down his life. Yet, in spite of these passages, you, presumbably with a straight face, tell us that the context of the passage is "NOT THE CROSS"!! Wow! Thank you very much for proving what I've been saying all along. You are so heavily invested into the limited atonement heresy that this presupposition that you bring to so many passages has literally blinded you to the contexts of those passages -- so much so that you cannot see a truth even when it's stated multiple times within a passage.

I rest my case. Again, thank you for proving my point. I almost feel indebted to you.

But moreover, the megabytes of irony here is that while you so desperately want "faith" to take center stage in John 17, the passage very clearly teaches that faith is a consequent of being sheep! The status of people being made sheep instead of goats, let's say, results in them believing. And this makes perfectly good sense in light of what Paul said in 1Tim 1:14

1 Tim 1:14
14 The grace of our Lord was poured out on me abundantly, along with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus.
NIV

Of course, you don't like this passage any more you do Rom 8:39 and probably even less than Phil 1:29, as well, but unless you can produce one that says faith and love and grace are found outside of Christ, then I think were' on very solid biblical ground to say that faith, love and grace are found ONLY IN Christ. This nicely explains how the chosen sheep came to saving faith. They were simply predestined in Christ in eternity. And what God predestined in eternity is sure to be fulfilled in temporal reality.

Jesus and Paul certainly knew what they were talking about. You on the other hand....?

 

[Doran]

@Doran


As stated so often you must PROVE your new Anti-Calvin invention is correct by merely not quoting even one Scripture that states your position, not one that states Jesus did NOT die for all but ONLY for some unidentified few.

You waste more time by whining and complaining, flailing your arms wildly in the air, and presenting straw man and red herring arguments and logical fallacies instead of showing that your new invention is what the Bible states. Y

You waste more band width by go on and on and on telling us what God CANNOT do, how everything He says on this topic is wrong (or at least very misleading; indeed billions of Christians are mislead by it and always have been), how God never did get this right.

All you do is chase after the wind, which is meaningless (Eccl 2:11, 17, 26).





Since you have not one verse that actually shares you new horrible invention, you just insist God CANNOT do what Scripture repeatedly states, that the words CANNOT mean what Christianity has accepted for 2000 years, to be brillient like you, we need to put a "NOT" in front before "all" in every verse, "NOT" before "everyone", "NOT" before the word "world" , "ONLY" in front of "elect" and "sheep" and forgiven. In other words, you must employ extreme radical eisegesis even to show the historic gospel is wrong.


We note the CONSPICUOUS ABSENCE of any specific and explicit passages that state Jesus did not die for all but rather, instead, only for some few.


to the contrary, e.g. God also loves all sinners, all evil people, all evildoers, the wicked, etc. I have repeatedly asked you guys to give but one passage that explicitly and specifically states that God loves such people! None have been forthcoming!






I guess we must accept this because while you've proven God never remotely said that, and it seems no one before those Anti-Calvin men invented their horrible theory, no one was as brillient as you and thus never noted God's terrible omission in not actually stating the truth there.

But the reality (all but it seems you sees) is the CONSPICUOUS ABSENCE of any specific and explicit passages that states Jesus died ONLY for the Elect. He certainly did die for them but what is conspicuous and obvious is that your horrible position is entirely, wholly missing. No "ONLY,"







You have. And I've agreed with every such verse you've offered. But try to stay on topic. I think we've all tired of running down all your irrelevant rabbit holes, your endless diversions, your countless red herrings.

Save you and us all this nonsense, all the diversions. Just list the verses that state, "Jesus did not die for all but rather, instead, ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY for some FEW." All these red herrings and diversions of yours just waste out time. All you do is chase after the wind, which is meaningless (Eccl 2:11, 17, 26).






Maybe (although an incredibly weak point). But to quote you, what is required is "specific and explicit passages that states that."

Perhaps things can seem "reasonable" but simply aren't what God says and perhaps not true. IMO, God likely is smarter than you. IMO, God is not subject to your brain (even in spite of your claim to great superiority and brilliance).

.

Well...it seems to me that my thoughts are aligned with God's since he has in his infinite wisdom provided numerous texts on doctrines that are quite specific and explicit. He has provided many specific and explicit statements in scripture that say he hates, despises, loathes or abhors sinners; while at the same time providing a large number that says that he loves another class of sinners who nonetheless are godly, obedient, God-fearing, pious, God-loving people. But what God has not provided is an explicit passage that says he loves both classes of sinners all at once and simultaneously.

That leaves you and your sidekick in quite a lurch.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Question re 2:1 which reads:

1 Tim 2:1
First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people,
ESV

So, was Paul telling Timothy to pray for each and every person in the world? Do you? Does anyone here? How are we supposed to understand the phrase "for all people"?

Yes, indeed, and I can think of many examples of that happening.

Albion is right, if his remark is intended to say that many people do in point of fact pray for the whole world, each and every individual, though those who pray thus on earth do not know their names. Those in heaven, the angels and saints, pray for every person, and they may well know all of their names, and because they exist in heaven apart from Earthly restrictions they may well name each individual in their prayers. Though I do not claim to have direct knowledge of it; nevertheless, the scriptures give us something to take note of:

And therefore we also having so great a cloud of witnesses over our head, laying aside every weight and sin which surrounds us, let us run by patience to the fight proposed to us: Looking on Jesus, the author and finisher of faith, who, having joy set before him, endured the cross, despising the shame, and now sitteth on the right hand of the throne of God.​

Hebrews 12:1-2

 

[Josiah]

@Doran

John 10:11 11 "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep NIV

John 10:15and I lay down my life for the sheep. NIV

John 10:1717 The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life — only to take it up again.NIV

John 10:18 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again.NIV

EXACTLY! I fully and completely agree with every word there, literally and verbatim.

And again, yet again, you prove Scripture nowhere states that Jesus did NOT die for all (as it so often verbatim states) BUT rather, instead, He died ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY for some FEW.

So...if my count is right, five times in this passage it's stated that he lays down his life.

.... and never once says He did so ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY for some FEW.

Nothing here that indicates God is so often so wrong when He states that Jesus died for all people, for everyone.

You keep shooting yourself in the foot. Proving Scripture never states your horrible Anti-Calvin invention.

1 Tim 1:1414 The grace of our Lord was poured out on me abundantly, along with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. NIV

Yup. Agree with every word.

You prove again, you have NOTHING. Nothing that states that Jesus did not die for all but rather, instead, ONLY for some FEW. Your whole horrible invention depends - entirely - on that word "ONLY" and without it, your terrible view is missing. And you keep proving it is missing. Completely. Scripture knows nothing of your horrible view. Nor did the Church Fathers, the Church Councils, Luther, Calvin... nor does the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, the Anglican Church, the Lutheran Church, the Methodist Church and a great many 'Evangelical" and Baptist churches... even all the Reformed Christians personally known to me.

unless you can produce one that says faith and love and grace are found outside of Christ

I realize you confess to not always reading what people post to you, but this just shows your extreme desperation. Everyone here knows (including you) that I never remotely stated that love and grace are found outside of Christ. Nor does this have anything to do with the issue here.

Well...it seems to me that my thoughts are aligned with God's since he has in his infinite wisdom provided numerous texts on doctrines that are quite specific and explicit. He has provided many specific and explicit statements in scripture that say he hates, despises, loathes or abhors sinners; while at the same time providing a large number that says that he loves another class of sinners who nonetheless are godly, obedient, God-fearing, pious, God-loving people. But what God has not provided is an explicit passage that says he loves both classes of sinners all at once and simultaneously.

You keep claiming that your have "numerous texts" that are "specific and explicit" that state your horrible invention, that Jesus did NOT die for all but ONLY for some few. But we all know this is a gross falsehood (and I think we can be completely sure you know that it is). You have presented nothing "specific and explicit" that states that Jesus did not die for all but ONLY for some FEW. You are SO desperate that it seems to me you are purposely well.... Sad.




.

 

[Doran]

But You didn't answer my question re John 10 and Mat 7:23: How can Jesus have a special relationship with his sheep (know them personally and intimately), even though they're still sinners, and yet not with the evildoers, especially since faith isn't in view in the Matthew passage? Or are you saying that because the sheep first chose Christ and first chose to believe in him that as a consequence of such choices God then gave these people of faith to his Son? But even then, it would be absurd to say that Christ died for those who he NEVER knew in eternity. What would be the point of Christ dying for anyone when he determined in eternity that he would never have a relationship with them to BEGIN with!?

Also, faith per se isn't in view in Mat 7:23 -- but more broadly "doing God's will is" and putting into practice [all] Jesus' words of his Sermon.

 

[Doran]

Albion is right, if his remark is intended to say that many people do in point of fact pray for the whole world, each and every individual, though those who pray thus on earth do not know their names. Those in heaven, the angels and saints, pray for every person, and they may well know all of their names, and because they exist in heaven apart from Earthly restrictions they may well name each individual in their prayers. Though I do not claim to have direct knowledge of it; nevertheless, the scriptures give us something to take note of:

And therefore we also having so great a cloud of witnesses over our head, laying aside every weight and sin which surrounds us, let us run by patience to the fight proposed to us: Looking on Jesus, the author and finisher of faith, who, having joy set before him, endured the cross, despising the shame, and now sitteth on the right hand of the throne of God.​

Hebrews 12:1-2

Yada, yada., yada. Provide definite proof texts. "May well..." doesn't cut it. Also, 1Tim 1-1-2 qualifies Paul's exhortation of "pray for all men". V.2 clearly limits who he had in mind.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Yada, yada., yada. Provide definite proof texts. "May well..." doesn't cut it. Also, 1Tim 1-1-2 qualifies Paul's exhortation of "pray for all men". V.2 clearly limits who he had in mind.

Your discourtesy tells more about you than it does about God.