What's the point of Jesus dying for everyone?

[Isaiah40:28]

Were you born saved, or did you have to be born again at some point?
If you were not born saved, the atonement did you no good 'til you believed, right?
So, how can you argue that, if Christ died for the sins of the whole world, then all are saved?What about repentance, faith, and belief, are those conditions not necessary for the blood to be applied?

Huh, please show me where I said anything like this?

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.

Romans 3:25-26 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

BTW, it is not a strawman argument to suggest you are lying to your children if you are not honest with them about what you really believe.

The point is that I don't hold to the statements that Pipedude wrote, so it is a strawman position that he's attacking.

 

[Blammo]

Huh, please show me where I said anything like this?

Most Calvinists argue that, if Christ died for the sins of the whole world, then all would be saved. That argument does not take into account being saved by grace, through faith (Christ is the propitiation through faith in his blood). If you have not made this argument, what is your problem with Christ's sacrifice being sufficient for the sins of the whole world, yet efficient only to those who believe.

The point is that I don't hold to the statements that Pipedude wrote, so it is a strawman position that he's attacking.

Here are PipeDudes statements:

Yet you WILL tell your unconverted children that God loves them, you'll teach them the songs that say he does, and you'll teach them to pray "Our Father."

Why not tell them the truth? "God loves a few children, he hates most of them and created them for damnation, and we don't know yet which group you're in."

What parts do you not agree with?
Do you not teach your children that God loves them?
Do you not teach them songs that say God loves them?
Do you not teach them to pray to the Father?
Do you tell them the "truth" as stated by PipeDude?

 

[Pipedude]

Strawman.

Prove it.

You didn't address the problems with the non-Cal view.

You are very perceptive.

God creates persons who He knows will never believe. Why doesn't God only create believers?

Dunno. You tell us, assuming that you know.

And then tell us why Calvinists teach their children things which they themselves do not believe.

On second thought, just forget I ever mentioned it. Nobody is going to listen anyway. We're like that, you know.

 

[npetreley]

If I'm witnessing to a bum on the street, I can say with no mental reservation "God loves you, Christ died for you." I can also tell my little children that.

Someone who believes in particular redemption cannot honestly say those things to a bum, to unconverted children, or to anyone else. He can say "God loves sinners" (a few sinners, that is), but that's as far as it goes.

So is your view right because it makes you feel better about what you can say to people? What if limited atonement is right? Aren't you spreading lies and false hopes? Which matters more to you - the truth, or how you feel?

I can say to anyone, without reservation, "Repent, believe on Jesus, and you will be saved." I can say that in hundreds of different ways, and it's always true, even if I happen to be addressing the non-elect and don't know it. I seem to recall that this was the message of "sermons" in the Bible. I don't recall anyone ever preaching, in Acts, or anywhere else, to a public audience, that "God loves you and Christ died for you".

 

[Blammo]

I don't recall anyone ever preaching, in Acts, or anywhere else, to a public audience, that "God loves you and Christ died for you".

Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.

What is the gospel?

Christ died for our sins, was buried, and rose again the third day.
If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
God commendeth His love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

 

[npetreley]

Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.

What is the gospel?

Christ died for our sins, was buried, and rose again the third day.

"Our" includes only the elect, as shown in Isaiah and quotes from the mouth of Jesus Himself.

If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

You can say that to anyone and it will always be true. That's the Gospel.

God commendeth His love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

This is not a public sermon, it's Paul writing to believers.

For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

You can preach that to anyone and it will always be true. This also is the Gospel.

For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Again, this is true no matter who you say it to.

Show me even ONE example where an apostle or other teacher in the NT says to everyone within a mixed audience that "Jesus loves you and died for you". Just one example will do.

 

[Pipedude]

So is your view right because it makes you feel better about what you can say to people?

Y'all are cute. You can't even read a simple illustration without perverting it into your preconceptions (for the glory of God, of course).

Did I say anything about "feel better"? Then why did you?

One more example of why I gave up on the debate twenty five years ago.

Wanna know what makes me "feel better"? Quoting Pink. I can't begin to express the sheer joy I've gotten from quoting Pink through the years. That guy didn't give two hoots about his public relations image; he just chopped his log and let the chips fall where they might. Regarding the lost, he just came right out and said that Christ "never loved them" (Sovereignty of God, ch. 4). Reckon CEF ought to make a flannelgraph lesson to teach that one?

And how about those heathen, eh? Any missions-minded folks on this Board under the impression that God ever wanted the heathen to hear the gospel? Better check with Calvinism first, for Calvinist theologians have a proof against Arminianism that says otherwise. Hear Pink's explanation of their lack of the gospel: "Now, if God had willed their salvation, would He not have vouchsafed them the means of salvation? Would he not have given them all things necessary to that end? But it is an undeniable matter of fact that he did not" (Ibid., ch. 5). That's how you know he didn't love them or want them saved: he didn't get the gospel to them.

Don't bother defending him. My paperback copy runs 261 pages and he defends his ideas just fine. Anyone who wants to swallow Calvinism and keep it down can mount defenses that would dwarf Babylon. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, I think that there was a thread regarding Calvinism just recently here on this forum where Calvinists defended their doctrine. (Correct me if I'm wrong about that.) So there's really no need to say it twice.

(Of course, you're free to repeat yourself if you wish. I mean, according to my doctrine you are; according to yours you--oh, never mind...)

Offhand, the only thing I think of that makes me "feel better" than quoting Pink is quoting Charles Wesley:

The righteous God consigned them over to their doom
And sent the Savior of mankind to damn them from the womb
To damn for falling short of what they could not do
For not believing the report of that which was not true.

My, I "feel better" now! Thanks for starting this thread.

 

[Blammo]

Pipedude,

It's a shame you won't stay in the debate. If you and Helen would handle these Calvinists, amateurs like myself could go talk about the weather.

I suppose I may be like you one day. Knowing too much about Calvinist doctrine and tired of talking about it.

(I'm already pretty tired of talking about it, but I don't know enough to quit yet)

 

[npetreley]

Y'all are cute. You can't even read a simple illustration without perverting it into your preconceptions (for the glory of God, of course).

Did I say anything about "feel better"? Then why did you?

Because I don't know how else to understand why you said it. If your position is wrong, then you don't know who is elect and who is not, therefore you risk lying. Why would you risk lying to beggars and children? Because you are confident in your position, that it is not wrong, therefore you believe you are telling them the truth.

Now, why tell them that? Why not simply say what MUST be true, which is that if they repent and believe on Jesus, they will be saved? What is better about saying to them that God loves them and Jesus died for them? It's a touchy feely thing, that's what. You are hoping to make them feel good, which in turn makes you feel good for having done that.

Go ahead and deny it. I'll remove the second part for your sake. You are hoping to make THEM feel good. But what if you're wrong? No matter, it makes you a good liberal, among other things. It's your good intent that matters, not whether or not it's true or accomplishes anything.

 

[Pipedude]

If you and Helen would handle these Calvinists

Don't be misled, Blammo. Giants like Charles Hodge or John Owen could squash ten of me like a bug. It's a presupposition thing. Share mine and you're like me. Share theirs and you're like them. No amount of wrangling can change it.

Would you rather face judgment looking like John Wesley or Charles Spurgeon?

If you can swallow Calvinism and keep it down, more power to ya. You're in excellent company.

 

[johnp.]

What has the fact that my sins have been taken away and paid for by another got to do with my belief and my repentance since I have been deemed not only not guilty but righteous by the Judge of all men?

If I do not believe and trust in Christ but my sins have been removed what is the entrance fee into Hell? I can't be sent there for my sins can I? My unbelief and unrepentance are sins which Jesus died for. (If He did not then it is a limited atonement.)
If it comes to the application of Christ's sacrifice, if the fruit of His death is only applied to those that choose salvation, what happens to all the suffering suffered on behalf of those who do not choose salvation. Did Jesus really suffer for all men's sins and then these people must suffer for all their sins? Does God extract a double payment for them? Why do they go to Hell?

john.

 

[Isaiah40:28]

Most Calvinists argue that, if Christ died for the sins of the whole world, then all would be saved. That argument does not take into account being saved by grace, through faith (Christ is the propitiation through faith in his blood). If you have not made this argument, what is your problem with Christ's sacrifice being sufficient for the sins of the whole world, yet efficient only to those who believe.

Oh, I see. First you say this:

So, how can you argue that, if Christ died for the sins of the whole world, then all are saved?

Meaning I have argued this line of thought.
Now you backpeddle and say:

Most Calvinists argue that...

So now you acknowledge that I didn't say that, but since most Calvinists do, you can just attribute it to me anyway. Why don't you just retract your argument, since I didn't use the argument that you originally said I did?
The problems I have with the non-Cal position are many.
1)Why would God send Jesus to die for people that God knows will never be saved?
2)Why did Christ need to suffer and die for eternal unbelievers?
3) And I'll add what johnp brought up which was my next question:
Why are unbelievers still charged with unbelief if Christ died for everyone's sins?

Here are PipeDudes statements:

Yet you WILL tell your unconverted children that God loves them, you'll teach them the songs that say he does, and you'll teach them to pray "Our Father."

Why not tell them the truth? "God loves a few children, he hates most of them and created them for damnation, and we don't know yet which group you're in."
What parts do you not agree with?
Do you not teach your children that God loves them?
Do you not teach them songs that say God loves them?
Do you not teach them to pray to the Father?
Do you tell them the "truth" as stated by PipeDude?

I've discussed this another thread with Brother Bob several weeks ago.
If you don't want to search for my posts about it, start another thread.

 

[Isaiah40:28]

Prove it.You are very perceptive.Dunno. You tell us, assuming that you know.

And then tell us why Calvinists teach their children things which they themselves do not believe.

On second thought, just forget I ever mentioned it. Nobody is going to listen anyway. We're like that, you know.

Here's something else I'm sure we will disagree on:
What's with all the attitude?
It doesn't help the discussion in any way.
I have no interest in combatting the sarcasm.

 

[Isaiah40:28]

This is what I asked earlier:

I appreciate all the responses.
This is what I was thinking and why I asked the question.
In the end, if Jesus's sacrifice for sin is only applied to those who believe, then He really only took away the believer's sin. An unbeliever's sin is still counted against him and Jesus' death accomplished nothing for him, eternally speaking.
Believing that God knows who will be saved, why would we believe that Jesus died for everyone, even those who God knows are not now, nor ever will be saved?
What is the point of believing that Jesus died for people who will never believe and God has known it all along?
This is what I don't understand about the non-Cal position.

When God sent Jesus to die on the cross, He already knew who would accept and who would reject, so why would He make Jesus suffer and die for people who would never believe?
As in my OP, what's the point of Jesus dying for everyone?

 

[skypair]

If you reject the doctrine of Limited Atonement or Particular Redemption and rather believe that Jesus died for the sins of every person, outside of saying, "because the Bible tells me so", I am curious what is the point of believing that?
Unbelievers are not affected in any positive way by Christ's death for sin, only believers, so why is important to interpret the Bible this way?

Oh yes they are! It is only because Christ died for their sins that they get a "respite" from sheol to stand in resurrected bodies before the great white throne judgment!

Of course, it is only to "bow the knee" ("every knee shall bow and every tongue confess") and be commended for good works (from the "book of works") before dying the 2nd death.

skypair

 

[Rippon]

SP , a "respite" is a delay , a temporary suspension of something . I hope you don't believe that those for whom Christ died get a respite from eternal punishment !

 

[Blammo]

Isaiah40:28,

Have a swell day. :wavey:

 

[johnp.]

2 Peter 2:9 if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment, while continuing their punishment.


john.

 

[Jarthur001]

Pipedude,

It's a shame you won't stay in the debate. If you and Helen would handle these Calvinists, amateurs like myself could go talk about the weather.

I suppose I may be like you one day. Knowing too much about Calvinist doctrine and tired of talking about it.

(I'm already pretty tired of talking about it, but I don't know enough to quit yet)

Someone needs to handle these Calvinist, they are really getting out of hand. They are trying to take over the world, I tell ya. If we don't stop them now the Calvinist will have us acting like real Baptist someday. You know..the type of Baptist like when they wrote those old Baptist creeds. Everyone knows those days are gone and past, but those old Calvinist.

After all, what's wrong with being a little free-will Methodist?? John Wesley had funny looking hair, but other then that, he seemed like a good guy. Oh sure, his doctrine didn't match the Bible...but is that such a big deal? I think the so-called "Holy Club", Wesley and his buds founded would have been a kinda fun to join. Just think...if we still had that "holy club" today. We could all set around and talk about how holy we are, and what we had done to make us look better in Gods eyes. We could talk about how many souls we had won as we go soul winning each day. We could talk about how our church is bigger and has a better jazz band then those old Calvinist Churches. We could compare how much we give to the church....not mission...but for new icecream machine. Those old Calvinist waste all their money on missions....those stupid fools. Why send someone over seas to share the gospel, when you can have a new laser light show in your worship service? I mean really!!

 

[webdog]

Thanks for the drive-by, James.