Who did Christ die for?

Where It Flows From

To All:

The Calvinist embraces a rationalistic fatalism rather than biblical faith in his approach to theology. This is how he arrives at the conclusions found in Calvinism.

Rationalistic fatalism is understandable in light of dictionary usage. According to Franklin's Dictionary & Thesaurus, “rationalistic” is literally: “reliance on reason as the basis for the establishment of religious truth,” and “fatalism” is the “belief that fate determines events.” Of course “fate” is a cause beyond human control to determine.

Looking at the statement in this light demonstrates that those referred to rely on reason rather than revelation as the basis for their theological moorings. The “circle logic” of five-point Calvinism is just that for the whole system crumbles when a single link in the chain is broken.

One must approach the system with reason rather than faith. This of course leads to the fatalism just mentioned, which holds that God has predetermined the destiny of all human souls, whether to Heaven or to Hell, and that all the witnessing, praying, and missionary effort in the world will not change the outcome.

The “circle logic” is why these men cannot and will not say why they might reject Calvinism's Limited Atonement.

The Calvinist arrives at his conclusions by filtering and viewing Scripture through the lens of Calvinism's five points. If the plain teaching of Scripture cannot be made consistent with the five points then Scripture is reinterpreted to fit the five points. That is how they arrive at extra-biblical positions such as regeneration before faith.

The men here have to come back, NOT with an answer, but with questions to misdirect the focus away from the five points. Concede one point and the whole thing crumbles.


LM

 

James, even YOU have stated that God loves his creation. So when did he stop?

God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, why not, He dispises them doesn't He? It fulfills His already decreed will that they be damned, so why does He not take pleasure in it? It pleased Him to see the travail of His own Son, why not the wicked getting His predeterminded decision upon them?

God so loved the world (His creation - man), James, that He gave His Son for it was the sole purpose of bringing to Himself everyone of them that will believe Him so as not to be condemned. His love is extended to this end, that they might believe. If they will not believe there is no 'fixation' of His love upon them beyond that which has been given on their behalf. We see there is no fixation of His love bestowed upon those of unbelief as there is with those who have believed. And since His extension of love toward them was rejected by them He gives them over and does not fixate His love in permenance upon them since there is nothing more that can be given beyond the giving of His Son for them. The fixation of His love is determinded by man acceptance of God and His truth, just as you have quoted from many verses and your right there are many more. But that determining was known to God from the outset and thus apart His purpose and plan that it might be to His good pleasure.
He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked.

 

Sorry I missed this post earlier.

So Christ died for people in hell, but He didn't expect His death to accomplish anything for them.
Is that the position you and the others are arguing for?

 

This is were it appears your get your perverbial wires get crossed.
Christ death did two things NOT just one. It saved some and condemned others.
Thus John 3:16,17 - God gave His Son that whosoever believes in Him SHOULD NOT perish... so what does that intend for those who do NOT believe - damnation.
You might say: But Christ did not come to condemn but to save those who would believe. True, but He does not condemn them in the sense He made them thus or made then not believe but that they choose not to believe.

It brought the fullness of salvation to those of faith AND condemned those who are not of faith going all the way back to Adam and Eve and all the way through to the last who will believe. Thus scripture states the propitiation of Christ is applied BY/THROUGH faith, even for those awaiting the shedding of His blood to FULLY atone for their sins and wash them away their sins rather than only cover them. It is not automatically given to anyone, otherwise even those who WILL be of faith are already saved and there is no need FOR faith.

Editted spelling and added words to elaborate more fully.

 

John 3:16-18

I don't see how the John passage says that Jesus died to condemn the unbeliever who was in hell.

So you're contending that those people who were destroyed, let's say in the flood and in the burning of Sodom and Gomorrah were not condemned until Christ died on the cross?
That His death brought condemnation to them while they were already condemned to hell for their unbelief?

And this statement, Allan, shows very clearly that you do not understand the compatibilist position.

 

Lou, there might, for all I know, be people in the world who work out their beliefs by reason and logic. The calvinists whose messages I have read on this board do not seem to do so. I know I don't. Certainly their (our) understanding of Scripture is different to yours, but we do not "rely on reason rather than revelation."

Later in your message (I only quoted part above), you said: "The “circle logic” is why these men cannot and will not say why they might reject Calvinism's Limited Atonement." I don't understand what you mean. If they believe that Scripture teaches Particular Redemption/Limited Atonement, why should they even desire to reject it?

You then say: "The Calvinist arrives at his conclusions by filtering and viewing Scripture through the lens of Calvinism's five points." Speaking personally, I had not even heard of Calvin, or the 5 Points (written, incidentally, to answer the 5 points of the Remonstrants, not as a complete doctrinal statement) when I found in the bible the teachings against which you are arguing.

 

I didn't say it did. You need to re-read it. I said Christ death fulfilled two purposes NOT just one AND THEN I brough up John's verses to show a two fold purpose.

Hell is a waiting place for those who will be judged and thrown into the Lake of Fire (the second death). They are in hell awaiting judgment much like a person accused of a crime waits in jail (a mini prison and it is much the same only the horrors of jail life really are magnified in prison much like hell and the Lake of fire, I believe)
They were condemned because of their unbelief but not yet judged for it. They are condemned to hell to await their Judgment (final and ultimate damnation)

I'm not trying to be rude here, but your 'apparent' understanding of things not Calvinistic is GREATLY in the need for more information.

The atonement or propitiation IS NOT applied or given (in time) to anyone until they receive it through faith, though it is known by God they will receive it in the Eternal knowledge of God.

OR the ESV:

There is NO propitiation given until they recieve His propitiation made through their faith in Christ.
If it WERE already given, ALL would be saved and there would be NO NEED for faith because we would be born saved.

 

No, they're not. Go back and study the reformation again.

Like I said, it isn't a matter of the 5 points. But if you want some useless ammunition, I would change "perserverence" to "preservation". That's the only thing I can think of that I would do with TULIP, but that still doesn't cover everything I would say differently than Calvinism.

Yes, I believe in Limited Atonement, but I also believe it is a logical conclusion and cannot be proved scripturally (nor can it be disproved scripturally). It is implied in many places, but the opposite is implied, also. As such, it isn't one of the 5 points I would spend a lot of time arguing about. I'd rather stick to the principles (including but not limited to TULIP) that can be proved scripturally.

 

I never heard of TULIP until I started participating on BB. I knew about Calvin hadn't read hardly anything of his. In fact, I still haven't read hardly anything by Calvin. The largest work I've ever read on the subject (and this was AFTER I believed in election) was Bondage of the Will by Martin Luther.

 

I don't really want to get into a discussion of what if any differences there are between the terms hell, hades, lake of fire, etc.
Let's just agree that when Christ died there were people already under dead, buried and under eternal condemnation due to their unbelief.
You can agree to that, can you not?
Where does John 3:16-18 explain that Jesus' death brought condemnation to those people?

Jesus' did not need to bring condemnation to those who were already condemned. THey are already condemned which is exactly what John 3:18 says.
So when Christ died, was it His intention to save those whose eternal destiny had already been sealed by their dying in unbelief?

I still say no.

You all argue, yes.
Atonement was made for all.
And when I asked how Jesus' atonement could serve any purpose for the dead unbeliever, your answer is that Christ's atonement serves to condemn them. And here I thought the reason you all wanted Jesus to have died for "everyone" was for a positive reason. Obviously not.
Honestly, I don't know what else to say to you.

You and I will never agree on anything involving "propitiation" cause your view of what Christ actually did on the cross is worlds away from mine.

 

Death of Jesus

Jesus death is for the world, anyone, but only whosoever believes shall be saved.Those who have already been condemned was not already condemned for already being condemned, but for unbelief.God has made a promise that those who trust in the Lord will not be disappointed. We are not to lean on our own understanding as many do, but trust in the Lord and He will direct your path.

Romans 11:
17If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in." 20Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. 21For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.22Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off.

Praise be to Jesus

23And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!

Hebrews 3:
12See to it, brothers, that none of you has a sinful, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God. 13But encourage one another daily, as long as it is called Today, so that none of you may be hardened by sin's deceitfulness. 14We have come to share in Christ if we hold firmly till the end the confidence we had at first. 15As has just been said:
"Today, if you hear his voice,
do not harden your hearts
as you did in the rebellion."[Psalm 95:7,8]

16Who were they who heard and rebelled? Were they not all those Moses led out of Egypt? 17And with whom was he angry for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the desert? 18And to whom did God swear that they would never enter his rest if not to those who disobeyed[Or disbelieved]? 19So we see that they were not able to enter, because of their unbelief.

Jude1:
5Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord[Some early manuscripts Jesus] delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe.

 

For Me...I'm Sure of That!

Need I say any more? I know He died for me; the rest of you, well, that's between Him and you!

Pastor Paul and Justis

 

Notice ...no answer was given.

Oh well....maybe next time

 

Makes My Point

Thanks for being transparent. Makes my point, "Reason over the revelation of Scripture."

What does the Bible say? "And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world," (1 John 2:2).

Only a theologian with an axe to grind would suggest that clear, unambiguous verse does not refute and disprove Calvinism's Limited Atonement.


LM

 

I have stated and will state again, Gods love never fails.

I guess you mean Ezek 33. I agree with the verse as seen in the passage.

Why add words? What is so hard to understand? Can not the Bible stand on its own?

To tell you the truth..I didn't read all of this last part. About part way down I stop. Why you may ask? Well it is clear you did not read my post. You never did address them.

nothing more other then dodging what was asked.

 

INDEED...what does the Bible say?

In the verse above when it says "the WORLD is gone after him"..
Does this mean that all of mankind ...every single person alive.....every man lady and child from the far ends of the earth...followed Christ?

YES...
or
NO...

What does the Bible say?????

 

No, it doesn't. I didn't even think about limited atonement until recently. You seem to think election hangs on limited atonement. If it does, then how did I manage to believe in election for years before I even thought about the issue of limited atonement?

And I did NOT arrive at my conclusions about election logically. It's so plainly taught in scripture it takes either immaturity (too new a Christian and unfamiliar with scripture) or spiritual blindness to miss it.

 

Here is another yes or no.

God says he loved Jacob.
God says he hated Esau.
God loves the world.
God says love not the world.

Are all of these statements true?

If not....which do you disagree with?

 

It's the application of Scripture that matters. You can also find in the Bible "there is no God".

 

I would like for someone to show where "whole world" can EVER mean a limited group of people.