Without the general redemptton being true.

[37818]

Therefore Jesus was not including Judas and was only referring to those who believe.

That simply does not logically follow. The fact that you made the argument means some how you suppose that statment is logical.

Now Jesus' statment is fact understood by me to include lost Judas.

Fact 2, no Scripture that supports the particular redemption actually disallows the general redemiion understanding. For examlpe, John 10:11 does not say, "I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life only for the sheep."

 

[AustinC]

That simply does not logically follow. The fact that you made the argument means some how you suppose that statment is logical.

The illogic is you thinking Judas partaking in the Lord's Supper somehow made Jesus atonement effective for all humanity, even if they don't believe. Yet, you claim Judas wasn't saved, which means Jesus atonement wasn't effective for Judas.

Now Jesus' statment is fact understood by me to include lost Judas.

We all recognize that you see Judas as an inheritor of the covenant, yet not a part of the covenant at the same time. Do you see your contradiction yet?

Fact 2, no Scripture that supports the particular redemption actually disallows the general redemiion understanding. For examlpe, John 10:11 does not say, "I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life only for the sheep."

Not one place in all the Bible do you see God atoning the whole world and ransoming all humanity. In every instance God cares for a particular people, His children. You are working hard to deny God's Sovereign care for His people.

 

[Silverhair]

He did.
Is Judas saved?
You said no.
Therefore Jesus was not including Judas and was only referring to those who believe.
It is no different than a paster speaking to the audience and saying "you" but the only ones that it means is you believers. Those who participate in communion that are not believers are also not a part of the body of Christ.
Now, either Judas was saved and he is included in the "you" or he was not saved and the "you" does not include Judas. The idea that Judas is included, but not saved, is a contradiction. You, however, will not acknowledge your contradiction.

I will admit that is one thing that I find consistent about Austin, Cognitive Dissonance. He can ignore any text that does not fit his theology, that is quite the talent.

What does the bible tells us about who Christ died for?
1Ti_2:5-6 who gave Himself a ransom for all
Heb_2:9 might taste death for everyone
Joh_3:15 whoever believes in Him
Joh_3:17 the world
1Jn_2:2 sins of the whole world
Rom_5:6 Christ died for the ungodly
2Pe_2:1 false teachers
Eph_5:25 the Church
Gal_2:20 gave Himself for me. {Paul / me}

1Ti_4:10 Savior of all men, especially of those who believe
Note the two groups mentioned here "all men" which would include the non believers and the ones that latter actually did believe. So even though Paul my not have told anyone that Christ died for them the bible makes it clear that Christ died for all men so that all men could be saved through faith in Him.

Austin this must be so hard for you to ignore but I know you will hold in tough and do it. Truth does not matter to you. Your a Calvinist first last and always.

 

[37818]

The illogic is you thinking Judas partaking in the Lord's Supper somehow made Jesus atonement effective for all humanity, even if they don't believe. Yet, you claim Judas wasn't saved, which means Jesus atonement wasn't effective for Judas.

It doesn't work like Protestant.

We all recognize that you see Judas as an inheritor of the covenant, yet not a part of the covenant at the same time. Do you see your contradiction yet?

Again, it doesn't work like that Protestant.

The illogic is you thinking Judas partaking in the Lord's Supper somehow made Jesus atonement effective for all humanity, even if they don't believe. Yet, you claim Judas wasn't saved, which means Jesus atonement wasn't effective for Judas.


We all recognize that you see Judas as an inheritor of the covenant, yet not a part of the covenant at the same time. Do you see your contradiction yet?


Not one place in all the Bible do you see God atoning the whole world and ransoming all humanity. In every instance God cares for a particular people, His children. You are working hard to deny God's Sovereign care for His people.

You are beyond sound reason.
1 John 2:2, ". . . And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. . . ."

 

[AustinC]

It doesn't work like Protestant.

Again, it doesn't work like that Protestant.
You are beyond sound reason.
1 John 2:2, ". . . And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. . . ."

Your incapacity to grasp the context of 1 John is noted as you must either be promoting universalism or are wrong in your understanding. You deny universalism on one hand and promote it on the other hand. Do you see your contradiction yet?

 

[37818]

Your incapacity to grasp the context of 1 John is noted as you must either be promoting universalism or are wrong in your understanding. You deny universalism on one hand and promote it on the other hand. Do you see your contradiction yet?

Point it out. You can't because no such imagined context actually exists. The meaning of the whole world is simply being denied.

 

[AustinC]

Point it out. You can't because no such imagined context actually exists. The meaning of the whole world is simply being denied.

Context...
*1 John 1:1-10*

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life— the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us— that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. And we are writing these things so that our joy may be complete. This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

*1 John 2:1-6*

My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments. Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may know that we are in him: whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked.

Can you see it, the context?
John is particularly addressing himself as a believer, the direct recipients as believers, and the entire world of believers. He is not claiming that the entire world is saved or that the entire worlds sins are paid for. If he was saying that, then John would be promoting universalism.
You, however, are both promoting universalism and denying it at the same time. Do you see your contradiction yet?

 

[Brightfame52]

Point it out. You can't because no such imagined context actually exists. The meaning of the whole world is simply being denied.

Since you believe and teach that Christ died for every invidual in the world, knowing as we do, every individual in the world wont be saved, then you must believe that Christs death alone, for them He died, doesn't ensure salvation to them. Yes or No ?

 

[37818]

Context...
*1 John 1:1-10*

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life— the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us— that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. And we are writing these things so that our joy may be complete. This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

*1 John 2:1-6*

My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments. Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may know that we are in him: whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked.

Can you see it, the context?
John is particularly addressing himself as a believer, the direct recipients as believers, and the entire world of believers. He is not claiming that the entire world is saved or that the entire worlds sins are paid for. If he was saying that, then John would be promoting universalism.
You, however, are both promoting universalism and denying it at the same time. Do you see your contradiction yet?

The whole context does not disallow the general redemption being referred to in the whole world.

Could but does not merely say . . .

 

[AustinC]

The whole context does not disallow the general redemption being referred to in the whole world.

Could but does not merely say . . .

Only if you embrace universalism. Do you?

If not, then you have a massive contradiction to resolve and at present you are unwilling to even consider it.

 

[37818]

Only if you embrace universalism. Do you?

If not, then you have a massive contradiction to resolve and at present you are unwilling to even consider it.

Universalism is a strawman argument.

 

[AustinC]

Universalism is a strawman argument.

Not at all. The very verses you chose are the very verses claimed by universalists.
You are attempting to run from your contradiction and not face your problem head on.
You cannot, on one hand, claim that Jesus has ransomed the entire world and then on the other hand claim that only those who believe are ransomed. Yet, that is precisely what you are attempting with your General Redemption theory.

 

[37818]

Not at all. The very verses you chose are the very verses claimed by universalists.
You are attempting to run from your contradiction and not face your problem head on.
You cannot, on one hand, claim that Jesus has ransomed the entire world and then on the other hand claim that only those who believe are ransomed. Yet, that is precisely what you are attempting with your General Redemption theory.

You are in denial. There is no such thing as universalism. And I don't advocate universalism. I asert Christ paid for God's grace to save the ungodly, Romans 6:23, Romans 5:6-10, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4.

 

[AustinC]

You are in denial. There is no such thing as universalism. And I don't advocate universalism. I asert Christ paid for God's grace to save the ungodly, Romans 6:23, Romans 5:6-10, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4.

As a teaching, there certainly is universalism. And, they use your verses from 1 John, 2 Peter, and 1 Timothy 2, just to name a few.

So, you use the same verses that universalists use and you use them for a similar argument. In essence, General Redemption sets up universalism as an option.

 

[Silverhair]

Context...
*1 John 1:1-10*

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life— the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us— that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. And we are writing these things so that our joy may be complete. This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

*1 John 2:1-6*

My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments. Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may know that we are in him: whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked.

Can you see it, the context?
John is particularly addressing himself as a believer, the direct recipients as believers, and the entire world of believers. He is not claiming that the entire world is saved or that the entire worlds sins are paid for. If he was saying that, then John would be promoting universalism.
You, however, are both promoting universalism and denying it at the same time. Do you see your contradiction yet?

He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. That sums it up quite well.

 

[Silverhair]

Not at all. The very verses you chose are the very verses claimed by universalists.
You are attempting to run from your contradiction and not face your problem head on.
You cannot, on one hand, claim that Jesus has ransomed the entire world and then on the other hand claim that only those who believe are ransomed. Yet, that is precisely what you are attempting with your General Redemption theory.

So Austin you disagree with the bible. But then that seems to be your common mode of operation.

 

[37818]

As a teaching, there certainly is universalism. And, they use your verses from 1 John, 2 Peter, and 1 Timothy 2, just to name a few.

So, you use the same verses that universalists use and you use them for a similar argument. In essence, General Redemption sets up universalism as an option.

The fact that any false teaching uses the word of God to justify it's false teaching does not make the different true teaching using the same scriptures to be false.

 

[AustinC]

The fact that any false teaching uses the word of God to justify it's false teaching does not make the different true teaching using the same scriptures to be false.

Yet, your teaching is also false since it presents universalism and then denies it at the same time

 

[Brightfame52]

Yet, your teaching is also false since it presents universalism and then denies it at the same time

That poster also denies the efficaciousness of the saving power of the Cross, teaching that people Christ died for end up lost anyway.

 

[37818]

Yet, your teaching is also false since it presents universalism and then denies it at the same time

I do not teach universalism. You are dishonest to say I present universalism. To deny the redemption of Christ is to deny the gospel, 1 Corinthians 15:3-4.

Without any ungodly to be able to know Christ died on their behalf they then have no grounds to repent and believe said gospel. Romans 5:8.