What's the point of Jesus dying for everyone?

[Humblesmith]

There are other atonement views that aren't penal substitution in the tradition with different reasons for rejecting limited atonement.
Yet, people within the Reformed tradition who were hypothetical universalists, while not monolithic, wanted to affirm that Jesus paid the debt due every person. Larry's comment about common grace is also appropriate. Besides the Scriptural passages that seem to defend hypothetical universalism like 1 John 2:2, I also think that other passages that speak of Christ being all in all, triumphing over the powers, etc. support a view of atonement that extends beyond the limited atonement view. These passages of Scripture influenced the ancient theories of atonement that evangelicals (both "calvinists" and others) today usually just ignore. These passages warrant an atonement theory that is capacious in Christ conquering sin on a grand scale. These are some of the same reasons why I am not only a hypothetical universalist but also want a view of the atonement that isn't so flat.

I'll put a link to an article by Tom Wright here. He addresses some UK in-house debates about penal substitution but his article is a good read (even if a little overstated sometimes).

Here's the link: http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/news/2007/20070423wright.cfm?doc=205

I'm sorry if this post is disjointed and incoherent. It looks a little bit like it to me.

Also see Norman Geisler's "Systematic Theology" volume 3, where he explains and reviews nine major theories of atonement that were held by various theologians over the centuries.

 

[Blammo]

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!!

James,

Have a swell day. :wavey:

 

[Allan]

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?? ...snip...

Only some of the Old Baptists were Calvinists, your statement is aberarration of the truth and is historically not true but a sad attempt at re-writting it.

 

[Jarthur001]

Only some of the Old Baptists were Calvinists, your statement is aberarration of the truth and is historically not true but a sad attempt at re-writting it.

I rewrite?

I said...

You know..the type of Baptist like when they wrote those old Baptist creeds.

So are you now going to prove to us that those men that wrote the Baptist creeds were not Calvinist?

 

[Allan]

I rewrite?

So are you now going to prove to us that those men that wrote the Baptist creeds were not Calvinist?

Yes, THOSE men were Calvinists But they did not speak for all Baptists of thier time, just their specific lot.

Which is why THEY made creeds. Most Baptists historically did not have creeds.

 

[Jarthur001]

James,

Have a swell day. :wavey:

I will....i mean I do most of the time.

:flower: :flower: :flower: God is love.

*****************************

As to the thread. Christ died to save sinners. If Christ love was so that He love all of mankind the same, and the death was for all of mankind...Did it work?

Lets play out the little die for all....

If Jesus died for all of mankind, and it was also the goal of God to save all mankind.,,,why did He not do this before Cain was born? If God had redeemed man before Cain was born, then all of man would have been saved.

CIA World Factbook says that about 56,597,034 people die each year.

I would say most were non-believers. In fact the % of believers that die, may be closer to 10%. But God only knows. But lets say that number is a high number. Lets say 75% are believers. This means 25% or 14,149,259 people go to hell each year.

If God wants to save all mankind, what is He waiting on? Each day Christ does not come back, means more people go to hell. Now think of all the billions that have lived since Cain. How many are in Hell? God only knows. Yet ...we all can know this. God could have saved all mankind, before Cain was born. God could have removed Sin nature from man before Cain was born, but He did not.

Is God waiting to save mankind and somehow overloooked that millions go to hell each year, or is God waiting for the last elect to be saved?

 

[Jarthur001]

Yes, THOSE men were Calvinists But they did not speak for all Baptists of thier time, just their specific lot.

Which is why THEY made creeds. Most Baptists historically did not have creeds.

Who said they it was words for all Baptist? We still do not agree today.

But, no one would deny that most were Calvinist the 1st 10-20 years, and this is why the creeds read as they do. I do not have the numbers in front of me, but I'm sure you can find this in your church histroy books alone. Many act as if Calvinist were not Baptist, yet they were the ones that founded the Baptist faith. I'll give you this.....within 50 years or so the number of Calvinist drop big time. Still....it was near 50/50 for years.

So...Calvinist are not trying to take over. We have been here from the start. Just get use to it, and live with it.

Better yet...become one. Or...still better...Come out of the "Holy Club"..and into the sinners saved by grace.

NOTE: To any that may not know, being this is a Baptist Board.

The "Holy Club" was a "holy club" the wesley Brothers john and charles started while at Oxford. They become known as "Methodists" because of their methodical habits....or works. Works matters...for man is in control of salvation, and ....in order to stay saved....you best do good.

 

[Allan]

Who said they it was words for all Baptist? We still do not agree today.

But, no one would deny that most were Calvinist the 1st 10-20 years, and this is why the creeds read as they do. I do not have the numbers in front of me, but I'm sure you can find this in your church histroy books alone. Many act as if Calvinist were not Baptist, yet they were the ones that founded the Baptist faith. I'll give you this.....within 50 years or so the number of Calvinist drop big time. Still....it was near 50/50 for years.

So...Calvinist are not trying to take over. We have been here from the start. Just get use to it, and live with it.

Better yet...become one

Yes, I agree that Calvinists were apart and not just some small minority in a corner somewhere. But do not go out there and make a silly statement that 'they' founded the Baptist faith, when you know as well as I do 'they' did not. It was more than one group who 'founded' that by which we are identified - Baptists.
And no, 'most' were not Calvinist. It depended on any number of circustances (as in where you lived, Religious Political system, Religious persecution by the Reformed and Catholic faiths, what works survived, or was allowed to be kept, ext...) as to who the baptists were mostly in any given area.

I agree many were Calvinistic and many were not. They could have had at differing points of history a slight majority pull, but that by no means puts them as being equated with 'most'. By that same token, they were not in the majority at times, but that by no means makes them some small sect in the mountians either.

Actually, There are many Calvinists (if not most) who desire to remove all contrary theological views to their own from the Churchs, Colleges, and Seminaries. That by definition is - "taking over".

But at the same time, there are those non-Cals who desire the same. Though not as many because some don't know nor do they care about theology or the specifics of soterology. That is pitiful to me and a shame toward them. It leaves their flocks at the mercy of any false teacher who can give them a good line and lieing proof-texts.

I can't become one, James. God has decreed from before the foundation of the World not only my salvation but also my Non-Calvinistic beliefs through His Holy Spirit.

 

[Allan]

NOTE: To any that may not know, being this is a Baptist Board.

The "Holy Club" was a "holy club" the wesley Brothers john and charles started while at Oxford. They become known as "Methodists" because of their methodical habits....or works. Works matters...for man is in control of salvation, and ....in order to stay saved....you best do good.

And yet great, godly, and God fearing Calvinistic men like Spurgeon spoke highly of him. Even though he did not agree with Wesley's theology completely (mostly) Spurgeon placed Wesley and Whitefield as men that if two positions were open in the Apostles of old, it would be filled by those two men.

Even Wesley spoke very highly of Whitefield and Whitefield of Wesley. Why is it that most of present day Calvinsts do not have the same love for the brethren that some of old Calvinists had and that scripture demands. I don't agree with all of Wesley either but I find it quite saddening to hear Calvinists on here bashing him at every chance they can.

BTW - Wesley did not believe in doing good works to obtain nor maintain your salvaition. You may need to study on him a little more. Works evidenced your salvation BUT you could decide to forfiet or reject your salvation at will - NOT that you could ever Lose it.

Still wrong biblically but you are not representing his views accurately.

 

[npetreley]

NOTE: To any that may not know, being this is a Baptist Board.

The "Holy Club" was a "holy club" the wesley Brothers john and charles started while at Oxford. They become known as "Methodists" because of their methodical habits....or works. Works matters...for man is in control of salvation, and ....in order to stay saved....you best do good.

Thanks, I didn't know that. I'll look into it, though. Sounds bizarre but interesting.

 

[Rippon]

Well Whitefield the Calvinist was part of the so-called Holy Club ( which formed in 1729 ) as well . They were known by others as "Methodists" -- kind of a mockery at the time . The two Wesleys were not saved at that time , but Whitefield was . Whitefield was converted in 1735 and the Wesleys in 1738 .

The Calvinistic-methodists were a force to be reckoned with . Even Dr. L-J was one in the early part of the 20th century .

BTW , John Wesley doctored the works of J. Edwards to remove references to the decrees of God . J.W. also doctored Jerome Zanchius' work " The Doctrine Of Absolute Predestination " . He habitually lied about A. Toplady , attributing things to him that were totally untrue .

Wesley hated free grace teachings . He thought it was blasphemous and that it made God out to be a devil .

So what has this to do with the OP ? It's kind of a diversion -- but John Wesley was a major proponent of doctrines held by many here on the BB. He taught prevenient grace , free will , all means each and every , election is an evil teaching etc. He even founded a magazine " The Arminian Journal" or some such title .

 

[skypair]

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 !

Get a break, rip. That better? I described what I meant -- they are taken out of sheol, given resurrected bodies, and bow before Christ's GWT. Yeah, sheol is "suspended." Only Satan goes there and that for 1000 years. The lost, from the GWT, die the 2nd death and go to the lake of fire.

skypair

 

[Blammo]

As to the thread. Christ died to save sinners. If Christ love was so that He love all of mankind the same, and the death was for all of mankind...Did it work?

Lets play out the little die for all....

If Jesus died for all of mankind, and it was also the goal of God to save all mankind.,,,why did He not do this before Cain was born? If God had redeemed man before Cain was born, then all of man would have been saved.

CIA World Factbook says that about 56,597,034 people die each year.

I would say most were non-believers. In fact the % of believers that die, may be closer to 10%. But God only knows. But lets say that number is a high number. Lets say 75% are believers. This means 25% or 14,149,259 people go to hell each year.

If God wants to save all mankind, what is He waiting on? Each day Christ does not come back, means more people go to hell. Now think of all the billions that have lived since Cain. How many are in Hell? God only knows. Yet ...we all can know this. God could have saved all mankind, before Cain was born. God could have removed Sin nature from man before Cain was born, but He did not.

Is God waiting to save mankind and somehow overloooked that millions go to hell each year, or is God waiting for the last elect to be saved?

1 Timothy 2:1-6 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

Mark 16:15-16 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

 

[Rippon]

Hello Blammo

Mark 16:15,16 or better yet Matt. 28:19,20 ( since it's not an addition to God's word ) represents no contradiction to Calvinistic claims .

1 Timothy 2:4 is referring to all sorts of people -- not each and every person past , present and future . IOW , the Lord wants all people to be saved with the exception of those He does not know , those who are ordained to condemnation , those who are vessels fitted for destruction , those who should believe a lie -- that they might be damned , those who ... you get the idea . Don't get confused when you see the word "all" compare Scripture with Scripture , look at the context -- you know the drill .

 

[Isaiah40:28]

This is what I asked earlier:

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?

So...where's the interaction with the actual topic?

 

[Amy.G]

Originally Posted by Isaiah40:28
This is what I asked earlier:

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?

Because He chose to.

John 10
15 As the Father knows Me, even so I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep. 16 And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd.
17 "Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. 18 No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father."

"Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!" (John 1:29)

 

[Tom Butler]

Because He chose to.

John 10
15 As the Father knows Me, even so I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep. 16 And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd.
17 "Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. 18 No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father."

"Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!" (John 1:29)

Try highlighting that part of verse 15 which says "....and I lay down my life for the sheep."

 

[Amy.G]

Try highlighting that part of verse 15 which says "....and I lay down my life for the sheep."

OK.


"Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!" (which includes the sheep)

:laugh:

 

[Rippon]

The LAMB did not die for the goats .

 

[examiningcalvinism]

Rippon

Question: Is there a verse in the Bible that says that Jesus did NOT die for the whole world.

Calvinistic debate tactic #1: Obviously since the Bible doesn't say such a thing, and in fact explicitly says the opposite (John 1:29; 1John 2:1), therefore instead of being embarassed by having to make that admission, its better to just quote a verse which talks about Jesus dying for the Church, and then hope that no one notices that the verse doesn't say "only" the Church. Along the same lines, use Matthew 1:21 and suggest that Jesus only died for His people. Even though "His people" is an unmistakable reference to Israel (John 1:11), claim "special revelation" whereby God had a "secret will" and that this references His "secret sheep" in contrast to "secret goats."

What if Jesus sat down with you and gave you an analogy of the atonement of Calvary?

What illustration do you think that He might give you? Turn to John 3:14-15, and you'll see Jesus give an example from the Old Testament, found at Numbers 21:6-9. Notice that Jesus did not say that there were some people bitten who were secret "sheep" while others were secret "goats" and that the secret sheep are the ones who looked to the bronze standard. Notice, also, that Jesus gave no indication that the atonement of the standard was limited in scope, but rather was opened up to "anyone." Realize that this was Jesus' example. Jesus gave us this as an example of how to view the Cross, and part of the Divine Comedy is that it does not teach Calvinism.