What's the point of Jesus dying for everyone?

[Amy.G]

Couple of things:
1) John 6: 63-66

Jesus seems to indicate knowledge similar to the Father's on this matter.

2) To be honest, I'm not concerned in this thread about what Jesus knew or didn't know. He was sent to do the work of His Father who certainly does have knowledge of all things.

Which brings me back to the question, if we can agree that God knows from the beginning who the believers and unbelievers will be, why does He send Jesus to die for eternal unbelievers?

You're right. I wasn't even thinking about that scripture. But, I wasn't being totally serious either.

I can't answer your question with any factual knowledge. There are some things that we cannot know this side of heaven, but I believe that God is fair (just) and in order to keep true to His nature of fairness, He must extend the offer to everyone. Therefore, there is no way that anyone can ever blame God for their rejection of Him. Everyone is given a choice. Either spend eternity with God or spend eternity with the devil and his demons. We are accountable for our own choices. But we have no one to blame but ourselves if we make the wrong choice.

 

[Isaiah40:28]

You're right. I wasn't even thinking about that scripture. But, I wasn't being totally serious either.

I can't answer your question with any factual knowledge. There are some things that we cannot know this side of heaven, but I believe that God is fair (just) and in order to keep true to His nature of fairness, He must extend the offer to everyone. Therefore, there is no way that anyone can ever blame God for their rejection of Him. Everyone is given a choice. Either spend eternity with God or spend eternity with the devil and his demons. We are accountable for our own choices. But we have no one to blame but ourselves if we make the wrong choice.

I appreciate your words, Amy.
It was a refreshing post.
I too believe all mankind is commanded to repent and is accountable for what they do with the knowledge they have of God.
As humans, we are not privy to God's knowledge or plans.
However, since the Bible speaks of God's knowledge as being all-knowing, then He certainly knows those who belong to Him and those who are lost to Him.
I do not pretend to have all the answers, but there are some things that we can reason through and this I believe is one of them.

 

[J.D.]

Examining Calvinism

JD,

Keep those thoughts in mind. You and I will go through each one in detail. First I've got John P on the line.

Examining: I'm waiting for you reply. What is your answer to the question I posed:

Was God's justice satisfied, or was it not satisfied, on the cross?

I'm sure you've seen this question before. Go for it.

 

[examiningcalvinism]

JD

JD,

God's justice was satisfied at Calvary. 1 John 2:1: "He Himself is the propitiation [satisfaction] for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world."

John Calvin writes: “It is incontestable that Christ came for the expiation of the sins of the whole world. But the solution lies close at hand, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but should have eternal life (Jn 3:15).” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.149, emphasis mine)

4-Point Calvinist, William MacDonald, explains: “Here we should pause to remind ourselves that while these false teachers to whom Peter refers had been bought by the Lord, they had never been redeemed. The NT distinguishes between purchase and redemption. All are purchased but not all are redeemed. Redemption applies only to those who receive Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, availing themselves of the value of His shed blood (1 Pet. 18, 19).” (Believer’s Bible Commentary, p.2295, emphasis mine)

2nd Peter 2:1 shows that even the wicked were "bought." All were bought, but only become redeedmed if they trust in Christ.

You wrote: "Did God love Esau?"

Yes and No. Yes, if you are talking about the person of Esau. No, only if you are talking about His anger against the Edomites for the evil that they had done to Israel in the time of the Babylonian captivity. (Obadiah 1:1-16; Psalm 137:7)

Question: When did God say that He hated Esau? (Recall that Paul quoted an OT verse, so name the verse)

Here is what's coming next: http://www.examiningcalvinism.com/files/Paul/Romans9_11.html

 

[johnp.]

JN 1:29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

Why does Jesus not reveal Himself to the world if He died for the world?

JN 17:6 "I have revealed you to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word.

Any takers?

John Calvin writes:

So what ex?

john.

 

[examiningcalvinism]

JP

JP,

You wrote: "Why does Jesus not reveal Himself to the world if He died for the world?"

...because of you and me. It's a fine question, but God's answer is a stare back at us.

Ezekiel 33:7-11: “Now, son of man, I am making you a watchman for the people of Israel. Therefore, listen to what I say and warn them for me. If I announce that some wicked people are sure to die and you fail to warn them about changing their ways, then they will die in their sins, but I will hold you responsible for their deaths. But if you warn them to repent and they don't repent, they will die in their sins, but you will not be held responsible. Son of man, give the people of Israel this message: You are saying, ‘Our sins are heavy upon us; we are wasting away! How can we survive?’ As surely as I live, says the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of wicked people. I only want them to turn from their wicked ways so they can live. Turn! Turn from your wickedness, O people of Israel! Why should you die?” [TLB]

You wrote: "So what ex?"

I cite Calvin not to force you into defending him, or to force you into lockstep with his beliefs, but only to offer support for my position.

In terms of John 17, note that it identifies those who were given, that is, of those whom He was given, He was with them, they believed in Him. Here is a long debate that I had with oldtruth.com on John 6:37 & 44.

http://www.examiningcalvinism.com/files/Gospels/John6_37.html
http://www.examiningcalvinism.com/files/Gospels/John6_44.html
http://www.examiningcalvinism.com/files/Gospels/John17_2.html

 

[johnp.]

"Why does Jesus not reveal Himself to the world if He died for the world?"

...because of you and me. It's a fine question, but God's answer is a stare back at us.

But He revealed Himself to us why doesn't He reveal Himself to the world? JN 17:25 "Righteous Father, though the world does not know you, I know you, and they know that you have sent me. 26 I have made you known to them... (Not have Himself revealed.)
But He hasn't made Himself know to the world, why not, it has nothing to do with us is it? If He wants us to witness and save the world He had better start praying for the world, John 17:9 I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours.

Why does the intercessor not intercede for those He loves ex? A lot of good it will do if we fill up our Churches just for Jesus to ignore them all a? John 17:14 I have given them your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world.
That's cool ain't it? Jesus says we are not part of the world just like Him, just as well really otherwise He would not pray for me because I would be part of the world and then I would not have a prayer.

I cite Calvin not to force you into defending him, or to force you into lockstep with his beliefs, but only to offer support for my position.

You quote Calvin more than anyone else I know.

john.

 

[J.D.]

JD,

God's justice was satisfied at Calvary. 1 John 2:1: "He Himself is the propitiation [satisfaction] for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world."

John Calvin writes: “It is incontestable that Christ came for the expiation of the sins of the whole world. But the solution lies close at hand, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but should have eternal life (Jn 3:15).” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.149, emphasis mine)

4-Point Calvinist, William MacDonald, explains: “Here we should pause to remind ourselves that while these false teachers to whom Peter refers had been bought by the Lord, they had never been redeemed. The NT distinguishes between purchase and redemption. All are purchased but not all are redeemed. Redemption applies only to those who receive Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, availing themselves of the value of His shed blood (1 Pet. 18, 19).” (Believer’s Bible Commentary, p.2295, emphasis mine)

2nd Peter 2:1 shows that even the wicked were "bought." All were bought, but only become redeedmed if they trust in Christ.

You wrote: "Did God love Esau?"

Yes and No. Yes, if you are talking about the person of Esau. No, only if you are talking about His anger against the Edomites for the evil that they had done to Israel in the time of the Babylonian captivity. (Obadiah 1:1-16; Psalm 137:7)

Question: When did God say that He hated Esau? (Recall that Paul quoted an OT verse, so name the verse)

Here is what's coming next: http://www.examiningcalvinism.com/files/Paul/Romans9_11.html

Forget it. I keep trying to have a conversation with you but you keep telling me what Calvin said or what you wrote on your web site. I suppose I could just paste in some of Owens or Gill's comments and we could have a quote-fest.

By the way, why do you think quoting Calvin is an effective means of debate? I could understand it if I or others here had cited Calvin as their authority. But I don't think anyone here considers John Calvin's personal theology to be infallible.

It is actually well known among Calvinistic theologians that Calvin presented a "softer" theology than Luther, Beza, and many other reformers. Do you expect to shock us supralapsarians with the words of a sub or infra - lapsarian? How would you like it if I repeatedly quoted the words of John Wesley or Jacob Arminius to you as if I expected you to repair your theology based on their thoughts?

Here's my web site, if you want to learn anything else go there first: www.arminiansayings.blogspot.com

 

[Isaiah40:28]

Forget it. I keep trying to have a conversation with you but you keep telling me what Calvin said or what you wrote on your web site. I suppose I could just paste in some of Owens or Gill's comments and we could have a quote-fest.

By the way, why do you think quoting Calvin is an effective means of debate? I could understand it if I or others here had cited Calvin as their authority. But I don't think anyone here considers John Calvin's personal theology to be infallible.

It is actually well known among Calvinistic theologians that Calvin presented a "softer" theology than Luther, Beza, and many other reformers. Do you expect to shock us supralapsarians with the words of a sub or infra - lapsarian? How would you like it if I repeatedly quoted the words of John Wesley or Jacob Arminius to you as if I expected you to repair your theology based on their thoughts?

Here's my web site, if you want to learn anything else go there first: www.arminiansayings.blogspot.com

Agreed. That style of posting is unproductive and annoying.
There's a few others on here who cut-and-paste like the glue factory is going out of business.

 

[Salamander]

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?

Limited atonement is an invention of men to try and explain the Omniscience of God.

If "l.a." were true, then we would have no need for salvation or faith.

 

[examiningcalvinism]

JD

Forget it. I keep trying to have a conversation with you but you keep telling me what Calvin said or what you wrote on your web site. I suppose I could just paste in some of Owens or Gill's comments and we could have a quote-fest.

By the way, why do you think quoting Calvin is an effective means of debate?

This reminds me of a certain bank robbery where the robber yells, "Everybody be perfectly still! Alright everybody on the ground!" The puzzled hostages answer: "Well if I get on the ground, then I'm a movin', but if I remain still, then I'm not on the ground."

Anyway, I'll be a movin' and answer the question. If I quote Calvin purely to grandstand, then I agree that it's counter-productive, which his last quote seems to be. If, however, I'm quoting relevant exegesis from Calvin, then that's fair game, and warrants an answer. The purpose of citing Calvin is not to force people to have to defend him, or force people to have to agree with him, but only to obtain support. In other words, it's saying that it's not some crazy Arminian that's saying this, but rather one of the patriarchs of your own theology who evaluated your point and determined it to be completely untenable.

Was Calvin a sub, infra or supralapsarian? Overwhelming evidence points to the fact that he was a 4-Point, supralapsarian, symmetrical double-predestinationist, not at all in the Spurgeon mode. Now, no sooner that I say this that I immediately draw the charge, "And what color was his hair?" You asked, here's what I think. I think that Spurgeon would refer to Calvin's double predestination as "blashphemous" (link available upon request), and what Sproul defines as a "gross form of Hyper Calvinism" (link available upon request). Yet, at the same time, overwhelming evidence points to the fact that he held 4-Point Calvinist views. Many 5-Pointers simply do not see how 4-Point Calvinism can be reconciled with Calvinism period, much less Supralapsarianism. 4-Point Calvinism is not automatically sublapsarianism. Calvin preached a theology of "predestination to Hell." Spurgeon called this "blasphemy," and yet Spurgeon was the 5-Pointer. Sorry if I've bored you with my verboseness. I'm simply trying to explain the subtle differences. I'd be glad to offer quotes to back every bit of this up, but I feel that you didn't want to get dragged to this point in the first place.

Summary, if I cite Calvin to support my specific exegesis, then that's fair game. If I cite him for grandstanding and to embarrass 5-Pointers, then that's probably not what I should have done, which is what I did above in the "incontestable" quote, since no specific exegesis was offered.

Calvin's 4-Point theology appeals to those who wish to believe in the Bible as it is written, and not to have to torture words like "world," "whole world," "all" and "any," and such like. Moreover, Calvin really believed in the 4-Point position, and he wrote it in convincing style.

Now that I'm off of that discussion, the answer from 4-Pointer, William MacDonald, is that the reason for Christ dying for the perishing (2Peter 2:1), is for a univeral purchase, which is not a universal redemption. Are you familiar with this concept?

 

[Jarthur001]

This reminds me of a certain bank robbery where the robber yells, "Everybody be perfectly still! Alright everybody on the ground!" The puzzled hostages answer: "Well if I get on the ground, then I'm a movin', but if I remain still, then I'm not on the ground."

Anyway, I'll be a movin' and answer the question. If I quote Calvin purely to grandstand, then I agree that it's counter-productive, which his last quote seems to be. If, however, I'm quoting relevant exegesis from Calvin, then that's fair game, and warrants an answer. The purpose of citing Calvin is not to force people to have to defend him, or force people to have to agree with him, but only to obtain support. In other words, it's saying that it's not some crazy Arminian that's saying this, but rather one of the patriarchs of your own theology who evaluated your point and determined it to be completely untenable.

Was Calvin a sub, infra or supralapsarian? Overwhelming evidence points to the fact that he was a 4-Point, supralapsarian, symmetrical double-predestinationist, not at all in the Spurgeon mode. Now, no sooner that I say this that I immediately draw the charge, "And what color was his hair?" You asked, here's what I think. I think that Spurgeon would refer to Calvin's double predestination as "blashphemous" (link available upon request), and what Sproul defines as a "gross form of Hyper Calvinism" (link available upon request). Yet, at the same time, overwhelming evidence points to the fact that he held 4-Point Calvinist views. Many 5-Pointers simply do not see how 4-Point Calvinism can be reconciled with Calvinism period, much less Supralapsarianism. 4-Point Calvinism is not automatically sublapsarianism. Calvin preached a theology of "predestination to Hell." Spurgeon called this "blasphemy," and yet Spurgeon was the 5-Pointer. Sorry if I've bored you with my verboseness. I'm simply trying to explain the subtle differences. I'd be glad to offer quotes to back every bit of this up, but I feel that you didn't want to get dragged to this point in the first place.

Summary, if I cite Calvin to support my specific exegesis, then that's fair game. If I cite him for grandstanding and to embarrass 5-Pointers, then that's probably not what I should have done, which is what I did above in the "incontestable" quote, since no specific exegesis was offered.

Calvin's 4-Point theology appeals to those who wish to believe in the Bible as it is written, and not to have to torture words like "world," "whole world," "all" and "any," and such like. Moreover, Calvin really believed in the 4-Point position, and he wrote it in convincing style.

Now that I'm off of that discussion, the answer from 4-Pointer, William MacDonald, is that the reason for Christ dying for the perishing (2Peter 2:1), is for a univeral purchase, which is not a universal redemption. Are you familiar with this concept?

Here's a crazy idea....

Why not quote the Bible. What does John Calvin have to do with Calvinism anyway?

 

[examiningcalvinism]

JP

But He revealed Himself to us why doesn't He reveal Himself to the world? JN 17:25 "Righteous Father, though the world does not know you, I know you, and they know that you have sent me. 26 I have made you known to them... (Not have Himself revealed.)
But He hasn't made Himself know to the world, why not, it has nothing to do with us is it? If He wants us to witness and save the world He had better start praying for the world, John 17:9 I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours.

Using a hostile witness, Calvin explains: "Christ afterwards prayed for everyone indiscriminately: 'Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing' (Luke 23:34)." (John: Calvin, The Crossway Classic Commentaries, pp.394-395)

Second, remember that according to John 3:16, eternal life is not unconditional, but conditional upon believing in Jesus. In other words, eternal life is not for unbelievers, but for believers. For instance, I do not pray that the lost receives eternal life. Rather, I pray that the lost becomes saved, that is, becomes believers in Christ, in order to receive eternal life. For instance, I do not pray that Hillary Clinton receives eternal life. Far from it! Rather, I pray that Hillary Clinton receives Christ, and through Him, receives eternal life, and has the Father revealed to her. Do you see the difference? That leads me to the following commentary on John 17:9:

John Wesley comments on John 17:9: "Verse 9. I pray not for the world - Not in these petitions, which are adapted to the state of believers only. (He prays for the world at John 17:21,23, that they may believe - That they may know God hath sent him.) This no more proves that our Lord did not pray for the world, both before and afterward, than his praying for the apostles alone, John 17:6-19, proves that he did not pray for them also which shall believe through their word, John 17:20."

 

[Isaiah40:28]

Limited atonement is an invention of men to try and explain the Omniscience of God.

If "l.a." were true, then we would have no need for salvation or faith.

Got to love this stuff.

 

[johnp.]

Hello ex.

...it's saying that it's not some crazy Arminian that's saying this, but rather one of the patriarchs of your own theology who evaluated your point and determined it to be completely untenable.

I am prepared to accept the argument that the scholars argue this and still there is no consensus. It is said one must take the whole body of his work not just a quote from here or there and I'm no scholar.

By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death. (John Calvin Institutes of the Christian Religion Book 3 chapter 21:5.)

Now fit that into a universal atonement and I will understand He died for those He predestined to Hell, it's cool. If the bible says that then I'm game. If Calvin changed his mind so what? If he supports your side that means nothing, one must take the whole body of his work not just a quote from here or there.

I suppose if there is a Calvin scholar here he could answer Calvin with Calvin, that would be interesting.

john.

 

[johnp.]

He purchased the field that He found His treasure in. He gave Himself for the treasure not the field, the field only contained His treasure.

That works doesn't it?

john.

 

[examiningcalvinism]

JP

Just to check your understanding, tell me how you feel that the 4-Point Calvinistic paradigm can be reconciled with Unconditional Election? I'm not asking that you agree with it, but only to explain it. Then I'll proceed with the "universal purchase" / "particular redemption" explanation.

 

[examiningcalvinism]

JP

He purchased the field that He found His treasure in. He gave Himself for the treasure not the field, the field only contained His treasure.

That works doesn't it?

john.

You preemptively answered the question. Indeed, that's how Phil Johnson explains it. Yet, J.C. Ryle disagrees with Johnson's interpretation of that parable, and the details are on the website. Once you are able to reconcile the 4-Point position, then you'll see how it can still support even symmetrical double-predestination's supralapsarianism, a paradigm which Sproul calls Hyper Calvinism. http://www.the-highway.com/DoublePredestination_Sproul.html

Here is a link to a 4-Point Cavinist, Ron Rhodes, and observe his perspective: http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/Atonement.html

If you want to attach a face to these names, here you go: http://www.examiningcalvinism.com/RollCall.html

 

[Jarthur001]

You preemptively answered the question. Indeed, that's how Phil Johnson explains it. Yet, J.C. Ryle disagrees with Johnson's interpretation of that parable, and the details are on the website. Once you are able to reconcile the 4-Point position, then you'll see how it can still support even symmetrical double-predestination's supralapsarianism, a paradigm which Sproul calls Hyper Calvinism. http://www.the-highway.com/DoublePredestination_Sproul.html

Lets try a few verses....they seem to work for me, better then quoting men

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."

Isa 53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put [him] to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see [his] seed, he shall prolong [his] days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.


Isa 53:11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, [and] shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

And now look what the Father says to the Son....

Isa 53:12 Therefore will I divide him [a portion] with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong;because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

The Latin Vulgate is worded like this..."therefore will I divide to him the prey of many people;''

***********
Some try to rewrite this next verse. Please notice the word "to".

Hebrews 9:28 "So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation."

 

[examiningcalvinism]

JArthur

I leave you with this article. If the Q&A is misrepresentative, by all means, correct it for me. It's only 1 page of Q&A:

http://www.examiningcalvinism.com/files/Paul/Romans3_11.html