Who did Christ die for?

The faith of believers WASN'T spoken of throughout the whole world, is that what you are implying? Scripture says it was...you say it wasn't. Hmmmm..

For such a hardline stance on the word "hate", you sure are more liberal with "whole world"

 

Back by popular demand, or at least by webdog's :laugh: -
Yet since I have done this earlier in the thread with James regarding 'Pink's misunderstanding of the usage of the term 'whole world' , I'll just requote it.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1111784&postcount=131

 

Here's something you should read before you read anything by Lou or any of his links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alarmist

The article really should add the fact that one of the reasons people love to be alarmists is because it helps sell their books (cough, cough).

.

 

What? Are you a universalist? Would you say that Christ's blood paid the price... was the substitute for sin for every individual that has ever lived or will ever live? If so .... you are a universalist.

I doubt that anyone on this BB believes that Christ paid the sin debt of every individual that has ever lived. If He did.... then everyone will be saved.... regardless.

I suppose everyone... except universalist... limit the attonement.

 

RB,
You've got to argue better than that.
They're gonna jump all over you.
You're assuming that your understanding of Christ's atonement is that same as theirs.
It's not.

And if you ask, they'll tell you and then you will see how much we disagree over.
It's a lot.

 

I want to follow this into a certain interesting line of thought.

Assuming the most common view of the atonement as some kind of justice payment for the debt of sin, we have a good reason that the one sacrificed had to be God Himself. Specifically, an infinite being could pay for so many sins, even infinitely many sins, in a finite period of time. Most Christians, even among those who hold to limited atonement, would probably agree that Christ *could have* paid for the sins of many others without another sacrifice. Essentially, since God Himself was sacrificed, we have a sacrifice of infinite value--an infinite checking account, so to speak, though the checks may be written for finitely many people.

Then the question arises, why not pay for the sins of everyone? Hypothetically, if He had paid for the sins of everyone (and surely He was able), what would happen then? If salvation only involves having this payment made, then everyone would be saved, would they not? Is there something wrong with this picture, perhaps another problem to be dealt with?

Ed

 

It depends on your soteriology. I think I see where you're going with this, but it doesn't pose a problem for limited atonement. I think you're trying to get to a point where someone says "The benefits must be appropriated by faith", etc., etc.

However -- if Jesus died for His sheep, and ONLY for His sheep, then His sheep WILL come to Him, and they WILL appropriate it by faith. There's nothing left to chance, and there will be no unmet conditions.

 

I'll take that as a no.

Am I good or what?

 

wrong again Allan....please read not only my post, but read your own.

Gods love does not change. Its not based on or determinded by man...that is pure wogwash. God loved us before we love Him.

If Gods love does not change...

How does God Hate Esau?

 

go for it...

 

and as back then....you fail to prove anything.
nor could you ever. The fact is, one can read it either way.

I just will not base my doctrine on one verse, when 300 other verse it has clear meaning.

Therefore this verse is clear to me.

 

Notice though all of this....those same verses were never addressed.

nothing yet.

And where did any one address this...

nothing on this verse...

NOPE


And this....

On the other hand we have....

Heb 12..

 

faith of the believers in ROME...lets get it right.

There is no record that Cain talked about the believers in ROME. Can you prove he did?

I rest my case.

 

Now the "whole world" is Rome? :laugh:

Did Christ pay for your sins since He paid for the sins of Rome only? Are you a roman citizen?

 

...talk about blindness...

 

Paul's plea

They missunderstood Paul teaching back then to, It doesn't surprise me that they still do today.

Paul made a plea in his letter that God wants all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth and Paul had to tell them he wasn't lying.

Why would Paul had to say that he wasn't lying about God wanting all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth, it is because they didn't believe him.

 

again another no nothing post

lost your way again?

As it turns out Paul was speaking of the believers in ROME.

Let me help you out a little bit there friend.

:laugh:

Try to keep on track.

Still no answer...just another dodge

 

one lines with no support you are well known for.

facts....you are not known for


As most of the time...that one-liner says nothing toward the verse.

Time to back your claims

 

lets post some more verses....

Do you believe this? Who will change the meaning of this word..."abhor"?