Name those sins Christ didn't die for

[Lamb]

Yes, I see where you're coming from. All your sins but what of the unforgivable sin committed by somebody else, did Christ die for that sin?

The unforgivable sin is rejection of all forgiveness. As Josiah and I both have said this is a Law Gospel issue and both Law and Gospel are true. The unforgivable sin is not forgivable...because the forgiveness of sins is rejected by man. If by grace through faith that man comes to know his sins are forgiven, then they are forgiven. The Gospel will trump the Law. If that man dies and still rejects the forgiveness of sins, he does not receive forgiveness. That's the truth of the Law.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Yes, I see where you're coming from. All your sins but what of the unforgivable sin committed by somebody else, did Christ die for that sin?

Blaspheme of the Holy Spirit?

I would think not given his words about it.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

 

[MoreCoffee]

Blaspheme of the Holy Spirit?

I would think not given his words about it.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

that appears to be the case. If the blood of Christ does not wash away that sin then maybe it was not shed for it.

 

[Josiah]

that appears to be the case. If the blood of Christ does not wash away that sin then maybe it was not shed for it.

How illogical (and unbiblical)....

While we cannot KNOW exactly what the "sin against the Holy Spirit" is (for the simple reason that we aren't told), I think the almost universal and historic opinion that it means rejecting the Spirit and the faith He gives is reasonable. Just because one REJECTS what Jesus did does not mandate that ERGO Jesus never did it.... your attempt to place your own personal, individual "reason" above Scripture actually doesn't work - it's not reasonable at all. If I offer my car to my wife to drive to work but she rejects that offer and drives her car instead, that does not mean that ergo I never offered her to use my car (much less that ergo I don't have a car).

The Protestant view on justification (narrow) is Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide as ONE, inseparable doctrine. Remove any part of it and it's not biblical or Protestant. But just because perhaps up to 5 billion people have no faith does NOT mandate by logic that THEREFORE there is no grace and no Christ. But I realize that you, as a docilic member of the individual RC Denomination, must denounce and condemn and anthmatize this Protestant view since your individual denomination condemned it and excommunicated those who embrace it and split itself over it.




- Josiah

 

[MoreCoffee]

[MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION], the Lord did not say his blood was shed for all, did he?

 

[Josiah]

, the Lord did not say his blood was shed for all, did he?

Read post # 324.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Read post # 324.

[MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION],
Why re-read post #324? Have you edited it to change what it says?

 

[Josiah]

Why re-read post #324? Have you edited it to change what it says?

It answers your question. But then you've admitted you don't always read what it posted to you - just condemn folks for you not knowing what they posted because you chose to not read it.

I admit - a good way to protect the views of self is to not expose self to any other views or to challenges to it: ignorance is a certain defense. But that's YOUR choice to do that; IMO your choice means you cannot condemn OTHERS for posting things you chose to not read.

 

[MoreCoffee]

It answers your question. ...

[MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION], your post does not answer the question. The Lord did not say his blood was shed for every sin and for everybody. He said For this is my blood of the new covenant, which shall be shed for many as a remission of sins. [Matthew 26:28]

 

[Josiah]

Where there is no faith, there is no justification (narrow) - or at least no promise of such.

I KNOW you are forced to reject, condemn and anathmatize the Protestant view of Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide (because your individual denomination, a bit after Luther's death, chose to do that and calls on you to swallow whole whatever it itself currently says). Furthermore, I disagree with your rejection of universal atonement (odd, because I'm pretty much you are disagreeing with your own demonination there - but perhaps not, the RCC has a plethora of views on soteriology, probably every view possible is one of the RCC's views - it's VERY confused on this). That's beyond the realm of this thread.

We cannot definitively know what this "sin" exactly is and is not - for one undeniable reason: we aren't told. But I stand with the historic church on this - it means to reject the work of the Holy Spirit, and thus the gift of faith. THUS, the issue here is whether there is faith or not. In the Protestant view, where there is no faith then "Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide" is not applicable and thus no justification (narrow). OF COURSE you are mandated to disagree because since the RC Denomination's denominational meeting at Trent after Luther's death, this view has been anathmatized. We all know that.



- Josiah

 

[MoreCoffee]

[MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION], it is a marvel to see how many times your posts side-step the question. The answer is what Jesus said. The question was [MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION], the Lord did not say his blood was shed for all, did he? and the answer is in the holy scriptures in the last supper dialogues when the Lord Jesus Christ said his is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

 

[Josiah]

[MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION], it is a marvel to see how many times your posts side-step the question. The answer is what Jesus said. The question was [MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION], the Lord did not say his blood was shed for all, did he? and the answer is in the holy scriptures in the last supper dialogues when the Lord Jesus Christ said his is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Already addressed. However, you've admitted you don't always read posts addressed to you or in reply to you.

Yes, I know, you MUST reject Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide because you are a docilic, submissive member of the RC Denomination which calls on you to swallow whole whatever it now says, and since its own little denominational meeting at Trent, it condemns that view.

You evading that (well, you probably jsut chose to not read it) and TRYING to divert this thread to a condemnation of "Sola Gratia - Solus Christus" too serves no purpose. It has nothing to do with the thread. Many of us have already addressed the issue of the thread (yeah, I know - you admitted you don't always read what may be challenging to you). But just in case you choose to read this: We cannot know for certain what this sin is and is not for one unavoidable reason: we aren't told. But the historic view is taht it means to reject the work of the Holy Spirit - which includes His giving the gift of faith. For Protestants, this means there is no faith and thus no justification. Yes, you as a docilic, submissive member of a denomination that demands that, that's probably not a reply you an consider.

And again, I find it curious you are rejecting the idea of Jesus as the Savior of all...... siding with uber-Calvinists and I think against your own denomination - but yeah, the RCC pretty much rejects the idea of Jesus as the SAVIOR of anyone, so.... But it's really just another of your evasions, diversions.....

I can't list any sins for which Jesus didn't die for the simple reason that Scripture doesn't state any. Yes, it does say there is "a unforgivable" sin (we just aren't told exactly what that is) - but it's illogical, unbiblical and silly to insist that THEREFORE Jesus is not the Savior or that Jesus didn't die for sinners (or perhaps THOSE sinners). It's obvious why that's illogical and silly - but some here took the time to tell you why, but again, you've admitted you don't always read things posted to you - just rebuke people for not posting what you chose to not read.


- Josiah


[I'll say it again..... please stop the "mention" thing; unlike you, I DO read what is posted to me; they clutter up my email box and creates MANY notifications which I've had to ignore since they are all just you and your 'mention' thing..... I can understand that you want OTHERS to read what you post, and that's good, but odd when you admit you intentionally don't read what others post to you. Just another request]

 

[MoreCoffee]

Dear Josiah,

Since the Lord Jesus Christ said that his blood is shed for many for the remission of sins nobody ought to be arguing that his blood was shed for everybody and for every sin.

 

[Josiah]

I disagree that "many" mandates "not for some." But again, it's a diversion. If you want to start a thread denouncing Jesus as Savior and/or universal grace, that's fine. I suggest you put it in the denominational forum under Calvinism but that's up to you, CH is pretty permissive on that. This thread asks for us to list the sins Jesus didn't die for. If you had read the posts to you above, you'd read that we can't post that list because Scripture doesn't mention any. I don't think your denomination does either. And you seem unable to.

I suggest you check with the individual denomination to which you are a submissive, docilic member on this - I think you are disagreeing with the RCC on this and thus being undocilic, uncatholic and heretical but who knows, pick a view - the RCC probably teaches it somewhere. And while we all know you are mandated to docilicly parrot the RCC's current condemnation of Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide, it's really irrelevant to this thread.


- Josiah




.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Josiah,

It is evident that some sins are not forgiven and one is not capable of forgiveness surely this one at least is a sin for which Christ's blood is not shed?

 

[Josiah]

Josiah,

It is evident that some sins are not forgiven and one is not capable of forgiveness

No. It says there is a sin which is not forgiven.

While it labels the sin, it does not define the sin. If you had read the many posts to you in this thread, you would have read that while none can say definitively what this singular sin is and is not, there is a historic view that it somehow involves rejecting the work of the Holy Spirit, including in giving the gift of faith - thus such a one has no faith. In the Protestant view, thus such a one has no forgiveness because they have no justification. But again, we all realize you must reject that because you are mandated to parrot whatever the individual RC Denomination says and for nearly 500 years, it as dogmatically denounced Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide.

Again, as has been pointed out to you several times in this thread (yeah, we know - you admitted you don't always read what is posted to you): your assumption that something not received/used ERGO cannot have been offered/given is in error. You are making a completely irrational and unbiblical assumption. Obvously. I'm not going to repeat (AGAIN) the reason for that, it's obvious. But this is just a diversion, an evasion...... this thread is not about some followers after Calvin's death who rejected the view of universal grace, it's about a request to list the specific sins for which Jesus did not die. I've read the NT, cover to cover, and I never read that list..... indeed, I never read ANY sin mentioned as "Christ did not die for this sin." You seem to agree since you've been unable to quote any such verse either. You TRYING to divert the thread and TRYING to imply that the RCC agrees with uber-Calvinism on this point (when I THINK it does not!) is just a diversion.

Like all the others in this thread (including YOU), I can't post a list of sins for which Jesus did not die - for the unavoidable reason that no such list is found in Scripture. You haven't even been able to quote any person or even your denomination on this. All you presented is a SINGLE verse (clarified by MANY you chose to ignore) about Jesus dying for MANY PEOPLE, you chosing to deleting "many" and replace it with "not all" and delete "people" and replace it with "sins." But we all know, that's not what the verse says (and just ignored SO many verse) and is not a list of the sins for which Jesus didn't die.



- Josiah




.

 

[MoreCoffee]

No. It says there is a sin which is not forgiven. ...

The holy scriptures say this:

"Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the children of man, and whatever blasphemies they utter, but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin" [Mark 3:28-29]​

Never has forgiveness is what the Lord is reported to have said. Not "a sin which is not forgiven" but one that is never forgiven, an eternal sin.

 

[Josiah]

The holy scriptures say this:

"Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the children of man, and whatever blasphemies they utter, but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin" [Mark 3:28-29]​

Read post 336.




.

 

[Lamb]

The holy scriptures say this:

"Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the children of man, and whatever blasphemies they utter, but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin" [Mark 3:28-29]​

Never has forgiveness is what the Lord is reported to have said. Not "a sin which is not forgiven" but one that is never forgiven, an eternal sin.

Those who reject the works on the cross don't receive it. Which means, never has forgiveness.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Those who reject the works on the cross don't receive it. Which means, never has forgiveness.

There is more to what the Lord Jesus Christ said than that. In the last supper dialogues he says his blood is shed for many for the forgiveness is sins and in the passage we're discussing he says that the one who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit is guilty of an eternal sin. Is his blood shed for this one? The one who blasphemes the Holy Spirit yet not shed for all?