For whom did Christ die?

From the original post:
But if the first be the case, why are not all men free from the punishment due unto their sins?
You answer, "Because of unbelief."

I ask, Is this unbelief a sin, or is it not? If it be, then Christ suffered the punishment due unto it, or He did not. If He did, why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which He died? If He did not, He did not die for all their sins!"</font>[/QUOTE]What you seem to not understand is that atonement for sin means "the penalty for the sins of one is paid for by the blood of another". We sin, Jesus died for our sin, thus paying the penalty for our sin.

Atonement is not a matter of forgiveness, nor is it a matter of justice. It is a matter of removing the penalty from one through an act or payment by another.

Atonement does not remove the consequences of the sins we commit, but it does remove the eternal penalty. Consequences are what happens to the perpetrator and his/her victims resulting from sin. The consequence of sexual relations between one with AIDS and one without, is that both end up with AIDS. The consequence of pointing a loaded gun at another and pulling the trigger is that the victim is dead or at least seriously injured.

Does the perpetrator of the sin lose salvation? Not if the perpetrator has faith in Jesus, because it is through faith in the Christ that one has salvation! Jesus said so! If you do not have faith in Christ, then His atonement for your sins does not matter, you are still condemned to the second death because of your unbelief and not because of anything else!

 

I have explained to you in private. You simply disagree. That is fine. But at least you have been informed several times as to the reason. There is nothing questionably in the least about my actions. They have been consistent from day one.

What of course you don't realize is that this is irrelevant. Calvinism/augustinianism refer to a certain set of doctrines with respect to soteriology. Most of us read very little of Calvin or Augustine either one since our doctrine comes from Scripture, not from either man. Their names are attached simply because of their work in systematizing what Scripture teaches.

 

Larry

I sure your as tired of this discussion as I am, but you have been anything but consistent.

At first you said

"it is customary for Catholics to confine their participation to the All Other Discussions and Other Religions section of this board."

I point out that this is simply not true.

Then you come up with reason number 2

"The Catholic view on soteriology is so drastically different that it introduces a complete disjunction into this forum."

I think the discussion so far , excluding our own, in Carson's current topic "For whom did Christ die for" is more than ample proof of the fallacy of your statements.

Go ahead and have the last word brother.

 

Something to keep in mind is that Christ actually did purchase salvation. He did not merely purchase the possibility of salvation for people. In Hebrews, it says that he suffered and learned obedience that he might be our faithful and high priest. Well, he couldn't be a priest if there were no one to be the priest of.

Honestly, I don't know what the affect the death of Christ has on the non-elect. I do know that he died to save a people set apart to himself.

 

I can't help but think that many problems in communication are simply the result of not clearly listening/reading. This is a prime example. The first statement you quote was not a reason, it was simple a statement of custom. And it has been consistently applied in the CvA forum since its inception. What other moderators do, I cannot tell because as I told you, I do not use those forums much, if any at all. In the time that the CvA forum has been opened, this has never been a problem. There have a been a few Catholics who posted once, but when informed of the practice I mentioned above, they understood and responded appropriately. You are the only one who has missed this.

The second statement you gave sums up the issue. Those familiar with church history and doctrine know that the RCC does not agree with the protestant position on soteriology. They have condemned it, pursued through unjust means (even to the point of death) those who held it, reckoned us to be unsaved and anathema. These are the simple facts of history and they show that a discussion about soteriology between us and you is not about Calvinism vs. arminianism. It is much more fundamental than that. To be able to discuss Calvinism v. Arminianism you must first be in a narrower circle with respect to soteriology.

This doctrine is why this thing called the Reformation happened, among some other reasons. To pretend like the Catholics and the protestants agree on soteriology is simply not a sound method or accurate knowledge of history.

I am not interested in having the last word. I was merely interested in making sure that misrepresentations were not spread in here.

 

He did not die to save anyone!

Is Israel not "a people set apart to himself"? Israel has been "set apart" from the very beginning, and it is to the Israelites that Jesus came. It is only after rejection from "His own" that He extended salvation to the 'dogs', those gentiles.

He lived among the Israelites to teach them about God the Father, whom they professed, God the Holy Spirit, whom they did not truly know, and that he is God the Son, whom they rejected, so now, ALL who by believing in Him, can have life eternal. He said that "whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life". Whosoever means "from among the whole of mankind, those who believe in Me..." It does not mean that only those who are preselected will believe, and in fact, the preselected ones rejected him, handing him over to be crucified, which is the ultimate purpose that he came to live among us.

Furthermore, scriptures tell us that Jesus was the creator and that power and dominion over all there is, including life itself, is given unto Him (he defeated death). That 'all there is" includes ALL mankind! Scriptures tell us that God did all that must be done for mankind to be redeemed, and that man can do nothing except believe and accept.

Believing and accepting are conditions of "receiving", and not "doing", so there is nothing for man to do, it is already done! The gift has been delivered, now it is up to us to accept or reject the gift through individual belief that the gift is ours, and the gift is to ALL mankind.

 

I have to agree with Pastor Larry on that one. I have been turned away from more than one Catholic board when asking them to consider the issues in a Calvinism vs Arminianism debate "over free will" and they were totally shocked that Catholics would have any view at all on that subject.

I tried to explain that this was just short hand for a debate about free will, total depravity and the sovereignty of God - but they would not hear of it.

However, I find the Catholics on this board to be much more informed about the rest of Christianity and how it relates to Catholicism.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I will only address these three points as it would get off topic if I did otherwise.

1. This is patently false. He died for the church (Eph. 5). He died to redeem a people set apart for him (Rom 1). He died to become a faithful high priest. He actually did accomplish propitiation (I John 2). He gave his life as a ransom for many. He gave his life to establish a new covenant.

What you are objecting to is whether or not he chose who would be recipients of his redemption. The answer is that he did. That is another topic though.

2. But "not all Israel is of Israel". It was always the believing Jews that were considered His people. This is so crystal clear.

3. The Chosen One of God, the Servant of the Lord, the Messiah, was always going to bring light to the Gentiles (Is. 42). That was part of his plan.

 

After reading that link I could see the point that Catholicism does not fit Calvinism - and also does not fit well with Arminianism.

Furthermore the vast majority of "quotes" for proving or establishing a doctrinal position - were not from scripture at all. {That is a mistake that Catholics posting on this message board do not do very often.} In short, the article was very typical for what I have come to expect from Catholic-only web sites.

On the other hand - the point made in previous posts about "Excluding 70% of all Christianity" is an excellent reason for finding a way to include Catholics in the debate.

In Christ,

Bob

 

But you haven't explained why some are able to use their ability to believe and some to unbelief.

Carson - the point is that IF the Romans 3 statement of Paul about "NO one seeking after God" (etc etc) is true of ALL mankind - then none will "choose" life unless something supernatural happens.

(For example, unless God draws them supernaturally).

In Fact Calvinist claim that God "regenerates" the lost person (from scratch) - they are walking down the street totally lost and then suddenly "zzzzap" they are "regenerated" and are both ABLE to "choose life" as well as fully inclined to do so by the work of God in them. In this way Calvinism can make the claim "it is ALL of God - even the choosing of life".

The Arminian view is that God loves all, supernaturally draws all, and died to save all. The view of some Arminians is that although mankind is totally depraved the supernatural drawing of Christ enables all mankind to choose life. But in this free will system - the MANY of Matt 7 still choose darkness.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Carson Weber,

I agree with all of your posts as to Christ atonement being for all sinners. [Deuteronomy 5:29; I Timothy 2:4,6; Romans 5:18; Galatians 2:6 {He is a respecter of no one} Acts 10:34; 17:30; I Peter 3:18] The Biblical truth was expressed well via your writing. Christ died for all lost souls; those who believe in Jesus become His elect ones.

You are also Biblically correct as to the fact that a sinner can resist the grace of God. [Isaiah 63:10; John 5:40 & Acts 7:51]

As you know I am a Christian minister and have 'hammered you' quite hard as to some of the doctrines that you hold dear to your heart as a Roman Catholic, that I do not accept as truth. But, when a man of God is right he deserves to hear it from another brother in Christ.

Most of us do not hold you responsible for what some of the ancients did to other Christians. Some Baptist preachers have a proclivity to be prejudice, and if I am reading correctly, I am deeply troubled that Catholic Christians are not welcomed to this topic. We can learn from each other and maybe heal some wounds of the past, if some would learn to be open with other people.

No moderator seemed to interfere when some of us Protestants got rough with you; I think we should give you the option of expressing your view of the Doctrine of the Atonement.

 

The context of Romans 3 is a discussion about Christians who chose to follow him no more. The letter is to the saints at Rome. Romans 1:7. In order for them to go out of the way, they must be in the way. One goes in the way. One went in the way. One has gone out of the way. Romans 3:9-12.

[ June 24, 2003, 02:41 AM: Message edited by: Frank ]

 

Ps 104_ 103:
The Bible also teaches Pharoah hardened his own heart. Exodus 8:15. The Bible teaches in Exodus 10:1 that God hardened Pharoah's heart.
It is obvious from the text of the ten plagues that they should have proven the need of Pharaoh to submit to the will of God. When he did not do so, Pharaoh hardened his heart.
God also hardened his heart in the sense that what should have created faith in God ( the plagues) was rejected by Pharoah. God provides the evidence for man to believe and submit to him. However, it is man that must accept or reject the evidence. John 12: 48. Pharoah chose to reject the evidence and hardened his heart toward the will of God.
Pharaoh prefered three things over the will of God. One, the lust of the flesh. Two, the lust of the eye. Three, the pride of life. I John 2:15, 16. This is the universal reason men reject and harden their heart toward God. we would do well to heed the lessons of Pharoah.

 

I will only address these three points as it would get off topic if I did otherwise.

1. This is patently false. He died for the church (Eph. 5). He died to redeem a people set apart for him (Rom 1). He died to become a faithful high priest. He actually did accomplish propitiation (I John 2). He gave his life as a ransom for many. He gave his life to establish a new covenant.

What you are objecting to is whether or not he chose who would be recipients of his redemption. The answer is that he did. That is another topic though.

2. But "not all Israel is of Israel". It was always the believing Jews that were considered His people. This is so crystal clear.

3. The Chosen One of God, the Servant of the Lord, the Messiah, was always going to bring light to the Gentiles (Is. 42). That was part of his plan. </font>[/QUOTE]For #1 you are quite simply wrong. Jesus came and lived among us and in so doing established the church. He could have continued living among us and accomplished the salvation of many more, but then that would have usurped the work of the church, and not accomplished the work Jesus came to finish. He died to atone for the sins of the world, thus Completing the work of the Father in establishing FAITH as the only consideration for Salvation.

#2 It may be crystal clear to you, but there are too many variables in the Jew's relationship with God for it to be crystal clear to me.

#3 What gentile nations did Jesus go to? As I understand it, He did not leave the land of the Jews. He sent his church to the gentiles, but he, Himself did not go. His church took his light to the Gentiles. His church was the last thing that Jesus established, before finishing the Work in dying on the cross.

 

Frank,

A good post . . . Your reference from I John 2:15-16 was well chosen and is one that explains to some the reason why the relative majority [Matt. 7:13] remain non-elect. Another reason of explanation is the condition of the hearts of different men and women. [Matt. 13:3-8]

Pharaoh had his days of opportunity to be saved. He chose his own political power and prestige over the value of his own soul. And because of this God used him so that God ' . . . might show His mighty power . . . . so that His Name might be declared throughout all the earth' even to our days. [Romans 9:17]

 

Yelsew, in no. 1, you say that faith is the basis for salvation.

In no. 2, you say there are too many variables to really know about the Jews.

In no. 3, you are unsure about the connection between Christ and the Gentiles.

My response:

1. The purpose of the atonement was to actually save people. That is why I listed what I did. Matthew 1:21 (he will save his people from their sin) is another text that support it.

He did not die exclusively to make salvation possible.

2. According to Paul, only believing Jews were really Jews to begin with. Remember when Jesus rebuked the Jews who said that Abraham was their father by saying that Abraham actually wasn't their father but satan was?

3. Nations is not political entities like we think of nations today.

You read the Gospels and find the references to gentiles made by Christ and the contact he had with them.

 

Hi Bob,

You wrote, "Carson - the point is that IF the Romans 3 statement of Paul about "NO one seeking after God" (etc etc) is true of ALL mankind - then none will "choose" life unless something supernatural happens."

Paul is easily misread by 5-Point Calvinists with regard to Romans 3, and I never quite understood how this is so until I took Dr. Scott Hahn's Principles of Biblical Studies I: New Testament undergraduate course at Franciscan University. Both in class as well as in his tape set, Romanism in Romans, Dr. Hahn (a former PCA pastor & seminary professor) explained this quite well.

Paul's thesis in Romans 1-3 is to demonstrate that both Jew and Gentile are in need of salvation, and that Jews are not somehow exempt from this need because they have the Mosaic Law and have been incorporated into the People of God through circumcision (i.e. salvation by works: circumcision, kosher food laws, festivals, moons, sabbaths, animal sacrifice, etc.)

In Romans 3:1-8, Paul shows what advantage there is to being a Jew. Then, in 3:9 and following, Paul demonstrates the "charge against Jews and Greeks alike that they are all under the domination of sin", and he quotes Psalm 14:1-3.

The 5-Point Calvinist, in order to defend his doctrine of total depravity, must assume and require that Paul is taking this OT quotation out of its original context.

In Psalm 14:1-3, David says:

"The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.' They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none that does good. The LORD looks down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there are any that act wisely, that seek after God. They have all gone astray, they are all alike corrupt; there is none that does good, no, not one."

So far, the 5-Point Calvinist seems to be right on.. at least, until one goes on to consider the next 3 verses:

"Have they no knowledge, all the evildoers who eat up my people as they eat bread, and do not call upon the LORD? There they shall be in great terror, for God is with the generation of the righteous. You would confound the plans of the poor, but the LORD is his refuge."

David spent most of his life fleeing from fellow Israelites (e.g. Saul & Absalom), and Paul - in quoting this passage - shows an OT prooftext (if you will), which demonstrates that both Jew and Gentile are in need of salvation.

Paul is applying "all" in the collective, not in the distributive sense. For example, if at 9:00 PM tonight, representatives of every dorm on campus were to come together for a dorm housing meeting in the student center, I would be using "all" in the collective sense if when after every representative arrived, I were to say, "All have arrived".

 

#1 The purpose of Atonement as you define it, has failed according to your definition because people, even the saved and the elect, continue in sin! Thus no one is saved from sin! Atonement does not save from sin! It pays the penalty for sin so that sin is not a factor in God's Judgments against man. Removing Sin from God's Judgement leaves works and faith. Scriptures tell us that Salvation is "NOT OF WORKS". So, guess what that leaves? That's right Salvation is by FAITH ALONE!

#2 Jesus rebuked specific Jews, and not Jews in general. Those that he rebuked were leaders among the Jews and not the general population. What the leadership does is directed throughout the general population, just as in every society.

#3 Understood, but where is the record that Jesus himself went out among the gentiles? There were gentiles who came to Jesus where he was, but Jesus had no direct missions to the Gentiles as your first post indicates.

 

Yelsew,

Your post was Scriptural and should be helpful to all.

' . . . but where is the record that Jesus himself went out among the gentiles? There were gentiles who came to Jesus where he was, but Jesus had no direct missions to the Gentiles . . . '

Jesus mission once was to go to Samaria. To Jewish people this sect was contemptible to them, because Samaritans were a mixed race of Israelite and Assyrian. In 721 B.C. Sargon of Assyria destroyed Samaria. The army had children from the Israelite women and the Jews hated this mixed race. Jews would go around Samaria rather than pass through this city. But, Jesus being a Jew and in His love for all human beings said, 'I must needs go through Samaria.'


, but

 

Ray:
I appreciate your kind remark.