What's the point of Jesus dying for everyone?

[Allan]

I'll address this later to show you again forget.

LOVE TO.

OK...lets look. The 1st quote was what was said came from Luther. Now you claim you have proof..and your proof will follow in the next quotes

Uh... where did you get THAT notion. I didn't say anything of the like. Are you trying to help yourself by making up things again?
Here is what I said:

Rather than accuse first, why not simply ask where it came from. I am interested too. Though I have heard that one specifically, I do have Luthers Commentary on Galations which states:

This does not say I have proof of Exams. quote, but would like to see it myself. I have heard that quote before - I do have Luthers Commentary on Galations which states: - And I gave alot of his Commentary to show context and that his version of world is not your made up version here.

Your quotes of proof that Luther said the above quote....

Notice how you neatly bend and sway from Luthers direct quotes, like well trained acrobat. I see you didn't deal with ONE of them.

Is that 1st quote in this quote? nope...I don't see it. So was the 1st post misleading..and this post also misleading? We shall see.. Next quote please.

Still dancing.

Is the 1st quote found in this quote? No...not there. Is this misleading? Next please.

and still...

is the 1st quote in this quote? No...again..misleading

And heres the finale!

This shows you at your best. Christ "died for the sins of the world"...all Calvinist agree.

No they don't. The vast majority of 4 pointers hold to the biblical defintion of world when in application to men - (lit. Wicked and sinful man)
Your re-vised definition speaks SPECIFICALLY to the fact you don't believe Christ died for the sins of the World.

John 3:16. But what world means is known my Luther and all calvinist, and not posted in your post.

Luther denies your view. Look again at his OWN WORDS from his OWN Commentary.

Why? misleading again? Shame shame.

Now who is misleading :laugh: You would be an expert at dodge ball.

Please notice the 1st quote..said to be from Luther.

1)...this>>>> Christ is not cruel exactor, but a forgiver of the sins of the whole world.

was never said by Luther.

again from the 1st quote..

2) ...this>>>>>Christ hath taken away the sins, not of certain men only, but also of thee, yea, of the whole world.

was never said by Luther.

I don't know. I personally haven't seen it and would like to know where it might be found. But Luther did say:
The world bears the Gospel a grudge because the Gospel condemns the religious wisdom of the world. Jealous for its own religious views, the world in turn charges the Gospel with being a subversive and licentious doctrine, offensive to God and man, a doctrine to be persecuted as the worst plague on earth

As a result we have this paradoxical situation: The Gospel supplies the world with the salvation of Jesus Christ, peace of conscience, and every blessing. Just for that the world abhors the Gospel
Notice world here is not speaking of the elect.
and (the first paragraph is to show what "world" he is speaking of)

This sentence also defines our sins as great, so great, in fact, that the whole world could not make amends for a single sin. The greatness of the ransom, Christ, the Son of God, indicates this. The vicious character of sin is brought out by the words "who gave himself for our sins." So vicious is sin that only the sacrifice of Christ could atone for sin. When we reflect that the one little word "sin" embraces the whole kingdom of Satan, and that it includes everything that is horrible, we have reason to tremble. But we are careless. We make light of sin. We think that by some little work or merit we can dismiss sin.

St. Paul also presents a true picture of Christ as the virgin-born Son of God, delivered into death for our sins. To entertain a true conception of Christ is important, for the devil describes Christ as an exacting and cruel judge who condemns and punishes men. Tell him that his definition of Christ is wrong, that Christ has given Himself for our sins, that by His sacrifice He has taken away the sins of the whole world.

and then

True faith lays hold of Christ and leans on Him alone. Our opponents cannot understand this. In their blindness they cast away the precious pearl, Christ, and hang onto their stubborn works

The elect casting away salvation, NO WAY!! And if not the elect then to whom did God offer salvation that they COULD cast it away, if it were possible?

AND

Since our opponents will not let it stand that only faith in Christ justifies, we will not yield to them. On the question of justification we must remain adamant, or else we shall lose the truth of the Gospel. It is a matter of life and death. It involves the death of the Son of God, who died for the sins of the world. If we surrender faith in Christ, as the only thing that can justify us, the death and resurrection of Jesus are without meaning; that Christ is the Savior of the world would be a myth. God would be a liar, because He would not have fulfilled His promises..

He has already established how he is using the term world repeatedly in the first two chapters of Galations via his commentary. He Not ONCE makes a distinction of elect world and sinful wicked world. It maintain it biblical definiton of - wicked sinful mankind in his renderings here.

AND HERE

The second part is this. God sent His only-begotten Son into the world that we may live through His merit. He was crucified and killed for us. By sacrificing His Son for us God revealed Himself to us as a merciful Father who donates remission of sins, righteousness, and life everlasting for Christ's sake. God hands out His gifts freely unto all men. That is the praise and glory of His mercy

If you can't say Amen, you need to say "ouch"!

More misleading?

I think we can see who is trying to mislead here.

 

[Jarthur001]

And yet if you would take the time to READ my post, you would see this is the point.
If you cannot produce a proof that the 1st luther quote made by someone else is real, then the rest of your post is worthless, for this was the point. right?

and your post have not shown that that quote is real. For some reason I do not understand, this never matters to you. The truth is the full truth, not part. This would be like me saying..

Allan said...and I quote. "I believe in limited atonement"
If I said this and said it was a quote from you you would get mad. Yet you see no reason you can't do this to others. I could even say...well you said most of it...I only left out a word or two. When what you said was.."I DO NOT believe in limited atonement". Two words makes a big deal....don't they?



now on the other hand, if you want to take up a thread about luthers book, start one and I would be more then glad to join. Just stop the misquotes and i'll be cool.

I understand it was someone else that made the 1st so called luther quote...but you have defend it with NOTHING and you have made such statements before.

Just try to be clean and upfront. no need to mislead

 

[Jarthur001]

I think we can see who is trying to mislead here.

indeed....

Quote:
Originally Posted by examiningcalvinism
I came across a particular quote from Martin Luther, and I just had to share it you:

Martin Luther (1483-1546): "Christ is not cruel exactor, but a forgiver of the sins of the whole world....He hath given Himself for our sins, and with one oblation hath put away the sins of the whole world....Christ hath taken away the sins, not of certain men only, but also of thee, yea, of the whole world...Not only my sins and thine, but also the sins of the whole world...take hold upon Christ."

http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/Atonement.html

I thought that you might enjoy this quote, to add to the variety of Calvin quotes.

And here is another thing where non-Calvinist puzzle me.

The so labeled quote above is said to be from Martin Luther. We see non-Calvinist pulling this shady tactic all the time. They try to make other Calvinist think that even great Calvinists of the past do not believe as they do today. This would be fine if it were true. But what we see is nothing short of misleading statements and at times lies. What they seem to forget, is that most Calvinist are well read and have study the subject on their own and find their claims full of hot air.

So what is the point? Are non-Calvinist willing to do anything to win their debate, even to the point that you mislead others, and miss-quote others, and think nothing about it? Does the doctrine of "free-will of man" need such help in that you must dip into deceitful tactics such as this?

We have seen many times on this board a quote from John Calvin on John 3:16, by not just one or two non-Calvinist but a good handful and is posted in such a manner as to show readers that even John Calvin did not believe in limited atonement. Yet the truth is, that this well know statement is just 1 line From John Calvin with many parts left out, again with ideas here are to mislead. This is easy to find, if one only read John Calvin and not a web site that hates him.

We see this again in the Luther statement above. I cannot find this statement at all by Luther in the books I have looked through. I did find it on many haters of Calvinist web sites, but this means little when it is not found in the word it is said to come from. Most all of these sites that are setup to bash Calvinist, never say from where this statement came from. However, three sites said it came from Luther’s Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians. This I know is not true for I have read the book. I have a copy in my library. Just to make sure I didn’t over look it, I did a search on a computer software program, and guess what. You got it…its not there.

So...where does this statement come from? Or is this yet another underhanded attempt to mislead?


Please know what you are posting before you take the time to post it. I get the idea from many, that their main goal and mission is to bash the Calvinist at all cost. They setup sites just for this reason, and think nothing of the fact they are misleading and not truthful. I do not understand why any one must run from the truth and feel as if they must take on an despicable ploy of fabrication and odium motives all in the name of their doctrine. Is the truth not good to them? One must wonder.

This coming from a side that suggest that God is only love and truth, but fail to take on such natures of their own.

May God help them.

Then you start in...

what gives?

 

[Allan]

And yet if you would take the time to READ my post, you would see this is the point.
If you cannot produce a proof that the 1st luther quote made by someone else is real, then the rest of your post is worthless, for this was the point. right?

and your post have not shown that that quote is real. For some reason I do not understand, this never matters to you. The truth is the full truth, not part. This would be like me saying..

Allan said...and I quote. "I believe in limited atonement"
If I said this and said it was a quote from you you would get mad. Yet you see no reason you can't do this to others. I could even say...well you said most of it...I only left out a word or two. When what you said was.."I DO NOT believe in limited atonement". Two words makes a big deal....don't they?

now on the other hand, if you want to take up a thread about luthers book, start one and I would be more then glad to join. Just stop the misquotes and i'll be cool.

I understand it was someone else that made the 1st so called luther quote...but you have defend it with NOTHING and you have made such statements before.

Just try to be clean and upfront. no need to mislead

Excuse me? The issue, in part, was the fact that Luther did indeed hold to Christ dieing for the world and not just the elect. Though a person might have quoted incorrectly or inaccurately does not dismiss Luthers own articualted words speaking to that same truth which was spoken (or written) incorrectly.
So, no it does not make "the rest of your post is worthless" because it establishes that Luther DID IN FACT hold to such a view. But I see we are dodging again.

The quote the other person gave might not be real but the ones I gave are, and since you have Luthers Commentaries you should have them readily available for you to view.

This is not about one or two words James, it is that fact that many Calvinists try to claim ALL Reformers held their view of limited atonement and in fact many did not! I have quoted more than a word or two or a sentence or two I have give paragraphs for context to the extent of about 8000 words.

I defended it with Luthers own words, so if you call that nothing then that is you issue with truth not mine.
And in relation to me "making such statements before". If memory serves (and it does) the ONE time you showed that, you only made it to two quotes out of 15 plus and advised me of my error that they (the two) were not direct quotes. I adjusted the error and gave the actual quote and where the statement of concerning unlimited Atonement could be found in the reformers OWN writings. One of them WAS an actual quote you just didn't look in the right place of the authors works. But we spoke of this before on ANOTHER thread but you still could not speak against the direct quotes, just like here regarding Luthers Commentary and Calvins as well.

I just want to keep the record from being slanted, when in fact IT IS.

 

[Allan]

indeed....



Then you start in...

what gives?

Could it be that you keep saying of me just like Exam. that I am being misleading even though the writters own hand penned his own thoughts in articulate form and concise meaning, you still deny their OWN penned comments.

I can understand about them not saying a specific thing but even if they are paraphrased and the exact quote is given to show this, the paraphrase still holds (or should at least) the main rendering of the passage in question. And therefore the paraphrase is just as valid as the original but only if the original can be confirmed.

 

[Jarthur001]

Excuse me? The issue, in part, was the fact that Luther did indeed hold to Christ dieing for the world and not just the elect. Though a person might have quoted incorrectly or inaccurately does not dismiss Luthers own articualted words speaking to that same truth which was spoken (or written) incorrectly.
So, no it does not make "the rest of your post is worthless" because it establishes that Luther DID IN FACT hold to such a view. But I see we are dodging again.

The quote the other person gave might not be real but the ones I gave are, and since you have Luthers Commentaries you should have them readily available for you to view.

This is not about one or two words James, it is that fact that many Calvinists try to claim ALL Reformers held their view of limited atonement and in fact many did not! I have quoted more than a word or two or a sentence or two I have give paragraphs for context to the extent of about 8000 words.

I defended it with Luthers own words, so if you call that nothing then that is you issue with truth not mine.
And in relation to me "making such statements before". If memory serves (and it does) the ONE time you showed that, you only made it to two quotes out of 15 plus and advised me of my error that they (the two) were not direct quotes. I adjusted the error and gave the actual quote and where the statement of concerning unlimited Atonement could be found in the reformers OWN writings. One of them WAS an actual quote you just didn't look in the right place of the authors works. But we spoke of this before on ANOTHER thread but you still could not speak against the direct quotes, just like here regarding Luthers Commentary and Calvins as well.

I just want to keep the record from being slanted, when in fact IT IS.

Allan,

I have said to you many times, I have no problem talking about calvin, luther or whoever you want. I do have a whole lot of problem with misleading others. You however...

well....if you want me to address luther...fine I'll do that. START a thread.

I have not dodged your post, for there was no need to address them, for My point was the misleading part.

 

[Allan]

So I agree with you, that God does not chasten all, for He gives up some for the love of others, just as the Bible says.

I have no problem with this. It is part of my own theology.
Though God loves the world, He has a special love for those whom He has chosen.

and..Matthew 20:28 "Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many." would seem to agree with this notion....right?

Of course as it is the appropreation of His life to theirs.
********

As to the 7 Churches in REV....they were the elect of God, or the non-believer will be kings and priests in the kingdom.

If you will note it is to the 7 Churches, which are symbolic of the whole Church body and in that frame of reference it speaks to all beleivers being kings and priests.

Allan, the Bible is wrote to Gods people. This is why the non-believer cannot understand it, without Gods help.

Granted

"If my people, which are called by my name"....is a call for the choosen to get right with God.

I understand your point but that wasn't a very good verse to use since they (israel) was ALREADY Gods people and had backsliden.

This does not mean non-believers are not within the church building, for they are. But the letters are addressed to Gods people. Now please note, that Gods people also include the Jews. And no, the jews are not all believers. The Jews were chosen for other reasons, and some are not chosen toward salvation.

Agreed here as well, but you loose sight of something. Just as there are false professing Jews amongst them when God is speaking to His people Israel, so it is in the physical church bodies. God writes to the redeemed but also addresses those who are not redeemed so as to identify them and command them to repent.

In chapter 3..please notice

after they are called down for their lack of works, they are then counseled. Does verse 8 sound like the romans road to salvation? Can you buy salvation? No..you know this. But you can layup white raiment and gold and crowns, with the work you do for the kingdom after salvation.

Here I believe you are incorrect. All of these are spiritual things accosiated with believers, and this Church thought they had it all and was wealthy in all things. SO God identifies where they are actually lacking (naked) and then tells in so many words...if you are so great, wealthy, and righteous then buy these thing from Me. In fact they can not, for no man can. THAT is what God is addressing. They didn't have it and didn't have the power nor greatness to attain it much less by it from God. Only one person could pay the price needed to aquire all those things God Himself - Jesus.

When we read books that addrees church problems, it is addressed mainly to those in leadership of the church, in order for them to do something about it.

To a large extent yes, but since it is to be read in the churches it also deals with those NOT in leadership.
*********

Now I know you do not think this applies to all Saints.

Wrong again. I stated the portion you try to quote as applying to all saints DOES NOT APPLY. It is later on in His speaking He address all.

You see this is the same message through the whole Bible.

One would have to overlook most of the Bible, in order not to believe in limited atonement.

It is also said likewise regarding unlimited atonement.

Like this verse..[/QUOTE]
They deal with Limited Redeption

 

[webdog]

Originally posted by Jarthur001:
Just try to be clean and upfront. no need to mislead

"Pot...there's a call for you from kettle on line one"

 

[examiningcalvinism]

Allan

---The Luther quotes---

It was not taken from an "anti-Calvinist" site, as JArthur assumes. It was taken from a 4-Point Calvinist, Ron Rhodes, and the link was provided for all to see and investigate, though some have chosen not to avail themselves to the link in which the quote was taken. Rhodes defends his position on account from support from the likes of Calvin and Luther.

Luther: "The Gospel supplies the world with the salvation of Jesus Christ, peace of conscience, and every blessing. Just for that the world abhors the Gospel." (http://blueletterbible.org/Comm/martin_luther/Gal/Gal001.html)

Luther: "Why does the world abhor the glad tidings of the Gospel and the blessings that go with it? Because the world is the devil's. Under his direction the world persecutes the Gospel and would if it could nail again Christ, the Son of God, to the Cross although He gave Himself into death for the sins of the world." (http://blueletterbible.org/Comm/martin_luther/Gal/Gal001.html)

Luther: "Isaiah declares of Christ: "The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." We have no right to minimize the force of this declaration. God does not amuse Himself with words. What a relief for a Christian to know that Christ is covered all over with my sins, your sins, and the sins of the whole world." (http://blueletterbible.org/Comm/martin_luther/Gal/Gal003.html)

Luther: "All the prophets of old said that Christ should be the greatest transgressor, murderer, adulterer, thief, blasphemer that ever was or ever could be on earth. When He took the sins of the whole world upon Himself, Christ was no longer an innocent person. He was a sinner burdened with the sins of a Paul who was a blasphemer; burdened with the sins of a Peter who denied Christ; burdened with the sins of a David who committed adultery and murder, and gave the heathen occasion to laugh at the Lord. In short, Christ was charged with the sins of all men, that He should pay for them with His own blood." (http://blueletterbible.org/Comm/martin_luther/Gal/Gal003.html)

Now some may suggest, "Well when Luther spoke about the world, he meant the whole world of the elect."

If so, then consider this statement: "Here someone may be tempted to call the Christians crazy. Deliberately to court danger by preaching and confessing the truth, and thus to bring upon ourselves the hatred and enmity of the whole world, is this not madness? But Paul does not mind the enmity of the world." (http://blueletterbible.org/Comm/martin_luther/Gal/Gal005.html) Additionally he says: "And this is our glory today with the Pope and the whole world persecuting us and trying to kill us." (http://blueletterbible.org/Comm/martin_luther/Gal/Gal006.html)

Calvin sounds similar to Luther in this respect, and Calvin's quotes are found in abundance on my website. This is not just one or two off-handed references. I'm talking about a library of quotes from Calvin. Ironically, in pet verses where the 5-Pointer raises issues, not only does Calvin not reflect their 5-Point view, but also even refutes them, as Matthew 1:21 particularly comes to mind.

http://www.examiningcalvinism.com/files/Gospels/Matthew1_21.html

 

[Jarthur001]

---The Luther quotes---

It was not taken from an "anti-Calvinist" site, as JArthur assumes. It was taken from a 4-Point Calvinist, Ron Rhodes, and the link was provided for all to see and investigate, though some have chosen not to avail themselves to the link in which the quote was taken. Rhodes defends his position on account from support from the likes of Calvin and Luther.

Luther: "The Gospel supplies the world with the salvation of Jesus Christ, peace of conscience, and every blessing. Just for that the world abhors the Gospel." (http://blueletterbible.org/Comm/martin_luther/Gal/Gal001.html)

Luther: "Why does the world abhor the glad tidings of the Gospel and the blessings that go with it? Because the world is the devil's. Under his direction the world persecutes the Gospel and would if it could nail again Christ, the Son of God, to the Cross although He gave Himself into death for the sins of the world." (http://blueletterbible.org/Comm/martin_luther/Gal/Gal001.html)

Luther: "Isaiah declares of Christ: "The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." We have no right to minimize the force of this declaration. God does not amuse Himself with words. What a relief for a Christian to know that Christ is covered all over with my sins, your sins, and the sins of the whole world." (http://blueletterbible.org/Comm/martin_luther/Gal/Gal003.html)

Luther: "All the prophets of old said that Christ should be the greatest transgressor, murderer, adulterer, thief, blasphemer that ever was or ever could be on earth. When He took the sins of the whole world upon Himself, Christ was no longer an innocent person. He was a sinner burdened with the sins of a Paul who was a blasphemer; burdened with the sins of a Peter who denied Christ; burdened with the sins of a David who committed adultery and murder, and gave the heathen occasion to laugh at the Lord. In short, Christ was charged with the sins of all men, that He should pay for them with His own blood." (http://blueletterbible.org/Comm/martin_luther/Gal/Gal003.html)

Now some may suggest, "Well when Luther spoke about the world, he meant the whole world of the elect."

If so, then consider this statement: "Here someone may be tempted to call the Christians crazy. Deliberately to court danger by preaching and confessing the truth, and thus to bring upon ourselves the hatred and enmity of the whole world, is this not madness? But Paul does not mind the enmity of the world." (http://blueletterbible.org/Comm/martin_luther/Gal/Gal005.html) Additionally he says: "And this is our glory today with the Pope and the whole world persecuting us and trying to kill us." (http://blueletterbible.org/Comm/martin_luther/Gal/Gal006.html)

Calvin sounds similar to Luther in this respect, and Calvin's quotes are found in abundance on my website. This is not just one or two off-handed references. I'm talking about a library of quotes from Calvin. Ironically, in pet verses where the 5-Pointer raises issues, not only does Calvin not reflect their 5-Point view, but also even refutes them, as Matthew 1:21 particularly comes to mind.

http://www.examiningcalvinism.com/files/Gospels/Matthew1_21.html

This is just to silly to address. If you want to know what Calvins teaches was, just read his many books. One small quote is not a true picture. Just as John 3:16 is not the full Bible. Nor is the 9th Chapter of Romans. We have to take all the Bible to understand the full message. We must read a human wrter in order to understand their teaching. Other wise, you will be mislead.

For me, I hardly ever quote a writer, till I have read a few things. I do this for another reason. For me, I do not want to find out later they were some crack pot...and I be quoting them.

I can quote Calvin, for I have read a few books by him. I'm in no way a Calvin expert, nor have I even read most of his books. But what I have read, is not the same Calvin you try to paint him to be. If you do not like the doctirne, fine. No one is holding a gun to your head. But if you find you must quote others, please know what your talking about.

 

[Jarthur001]

"Pot...there's a call for you from kettle on line one"

Thats, "Mr Pot" to you think you very much.

 

[npetreley]

Thats, "Mr Pot" to you think you very much.

Freudian slip?