Who did Christ die for?

Who did Jesus Christ die for?

What does the Bible say?

No amount of Calvinistic presuppositions, logic and reason or twisting these verses to allow for universalism changes the clear Bible fact that He died for all men that were born or ever will be born.


LM

 

Amy, those are manmade labels for a God made plan. I have no problem in believing both or with believing that it is man's own choices that makes the difference between the two. Why do you think I must choose between the two?

 

Indeed, and no twisting is needed. The verse comes from a passage that when seen in context, the meaning is clear.

Notice how the chapter starts...
Who believes our report?
Who is the arn or the LORD revealed?

Well if you read the passage the passage tells us who. Reread the whole passage and notice the words "us" and "we". Who is "we"?
Next look at the passage in the middle...

See the word seed there? His death brings fruit. We are that fruit.

Notice John 12..

Then look at the last verse in the chapter...

 

I'll let Pink address 1 John 2:2

 

Guess I'm kinda' simple.

Always thought "world" meant "world".

Ed

 

That is some twisting of the Word to get those definitions of the word 'world'.

Course I kinda like the idea that Satan can't decieve me as I am a believer. If that is the case, I can do as I please with no thought of others/God as it is not possible for me to be decieved into doing wrong. Wait, I think I've confuseded myself.

 

It does.

Let me ask you something. Do you like to eat food?

 

Well, let's see Pink and you start off on the wrong foot:

No one here I have seen is advocating universal redemption. So you and Pink are arguing with the wrong group. Now there may be one or two here that feel that way but the majority, if not all, who have expressed opposition to LIMITED ATONEMENT have made it clear they do not hold to universal redemption.

I suggest at least you start your argument from the correct point before going any further.

 

I Like this one part Pinkl addresses. It is worth repeating.

If Christ is the propitiation for those now in hell, what guarantee have I that I may not end in hell?

In fact, when Christ died on the cross, there were more then just a few men that had died before He came to earth. So did Christ die for those already in Hell?

Lets put a name to this. Did Christ die for Cain? Cain was died and gone by this time. What kind of power to you place in the Blood of Christ? When His blood was given on the cross, for ALL the sins on man as you say, does this mean Cain is now in Heaven? Is it a sin to not believe in Christ? Was Cain forgiven for this sin?

As for me, I feel the blood of Christ is the power of salvation. When He died His death WORKED!! It saved. When it says He paid the price...I think it really means He paid the price. Those was not a trick...or a joke. It really happened.

 

Well, the non-Calvininsts here already stated that Jesus did not die for anyone in hell at the time of his death, therefore that is at least one group of people His death could not "potentially" save.
So the "whole world" and "all" must exclude at least those people.
Then there is the John 6 passage where Jesus is said to have known which ones would not believe and who would betray Him. So there's a probable reference to Judas who is also called the "son of perdition". And it appears that Judas hung himself prior to Christ's death, which means no atonement could be made for him, so that's one more to exclude from the "whole world" group.

And that's been the whole point of my interaction with this thread.
Jesus did not need to make salvation "potential" for anyone whose soul was not bound for heaven.
In Christ's mind, He knew His sheep by name and knew that His death was making their salvation a done deal in the mind of the Trinity.

Allan's posts about the NT atonement mirroring the OT in its scope are in error.
The OT sacrfices were offered and in his forbearance God chose to accept them and not judge Israel. However, Hebrews makes it clear that the blood of sheep and goats could not remove the sins. OT unbelievers still perished because the atonement offered only brought temporal salvation to Israel. It wasn't until Christ came that the sins of the OT saints were eternally atoned for along with the present and future believers.
So to assume a one-to-one correlation between the OT and NT atonements is not correct. The OT sacrifices were a type as we all know which was meant to teach the Israelites about a future fully atoning sacrifice offered by the promised One.
There's lots more that could be said about this but I didn't want Allan's post to go unchecked.

 

Unfortunately for Pink (great man just greatly mistaken) it does not undermind the foundation of faith just Calvinistic faith. If we are to understand the usage of the phrase 'whole world' by John we must see how 'he' defines it, and not what some theology wants it to be.
Lets look shall we:

So in the same book he uses this term twice. Once to show that Christ propitiation was not for a particualar group ONLY but that it extends far beyond to the whole world. The next time he uses it only a few chapters later it he uses it to mean all the ungodly - for they lie in wickedness. It does not mean ALL men since the redeemed do not lie in wickedness thus we have at least one definition. John uses this phrase twice more, so lets see them to and see if maybe he uses another defintion.

The 'whole world' in 12:9 are those decieved by Satan, which again is not believers but all ungodly. Maybe it is the next verse. NOPE! It to speaks of all the ungodly who come together to do battle with Christ.

John seems pretty consistant with how he views the phrase 'whole world'. And so it seems that propitiation not for ours only but the sins of the 'whole world' can be replaced with "all the ungodly".

Our garrentee?
That propitiation is not received except through faith.

It is not about loosing something but how does one receive it.

Did Christ die for Cain? According to John He did, so I place my bet with John. But Cain did not receive the love of the truth that he might be saved. And for this cause God sent him a strong delusion, that he should believe a lie: That he might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Cain did not go to heaven when Christ died on his behalf because Cain did not receive the truth he had been given that could save Him. He did not receive the propitiation which is only given or 'applied' through faith.

All OT people were saved according the truth they had even though it only foreshadowed Christ and they did not know exactly how the redemption would be obtained. They believed in that redeption which comes through the atonement.

Moses is saved, as is Abraham, Isaiah, Amos, and on and on. Why? Because they recieved the promise by faith, for the propititiation is applied to those of faith.
It saves those of faith and condemns those of unbelief.

 

WRONG. THEY are other non-calvinists. I never said that and the majority of those here holding to UNLIMITED ATONEMENT I am certain believe Christ died for all men at all times past, present and future so your argument begins in ERROR.


Now if you want to address that fractional subgroup, fine but your post is disingenuous because it CLEARLY does not represent the majority view of those here posting that hold to UNLIMITED ATONEMENT>

 

So the Atonement did not have to be done in accordance with the Law? Yes it did, thus it had to include everyone.
Ball is thrown - Strike one!

Are you contending that OT believers 'perished' as in went to hell because their sins remained? if so, WRONG!!!
Their sins were covered until the coming of the true Atonement that will wash way all sin from those of faith.
Ball is thrown - Strike two!

To NOT assume a one-to-one correlation between the OT and NT Atonement is slap-stick silly. If it is not then the NT atonement has no value or worth. It would not appease the LAWS NEED for the sheding of blood to remove sin. If not then Christ would not need to have shed His blood, die, and be pure/holy (without spot or blemish) in accordance with the Law. The NT Atonement is established in the understanding of the OT Atonement.
Ball is thrown - Strike three!!

Yes, the OT were a type but it still revealed what had to be done, for whom it was to be done, and why it must be done.

I appreciate you wanting it not to go unchecked, but I would first 'check' you facts :smilewinkgrin:
Umpire - Yourrrrrr OUT!

 

True that!!

 

What Does the Bible Say?

What does the Bible say?

As noted and anticipated in my previous post we have received notes that are based on Calvinistic presuppositions (Pink).

The Calvinist just can't let the Bible say what it says without filtering it through Calvinism's trappings of logic and reason.


LM

 

Lou, I am astonished at the refusal of people that obviously are intelligent and able to make deductions and observations simply by-pass this most clear verse and its context. Calvin's Institutes does require some academic capacity so it isn't not understanding the verse. I believe you present a very important reason why it is either by-passed or dismissed and as you said, it is filter or forced through or into the Calvinistic grid.

 

Of course unbelief condemns a man.
But if Christ atoned for all mankind already, then ALL mankind is justified in Christ. Thus they are declared righteous because they have the righteousness of Christ inparted to them. If the atonement is given to all men NOW, then all men ARE forgiven because the atonement is the propitiation that brings peace between the two.

Sin brings condemnation:

If unbelief is condemns a man then it is a sin, and in fact in Heb 3:12 it shows that unbelief is equated with that which is evil.

Regarding your 'idea' that "application' of atonement is not found in the bible, you are infatically mistaken.

The propitaitory merit of Atonement is 'applied' via faith as set for IN SCRIPTURE.
Atonement = justification
Scriture states we are justified by faith.
The Propitiation of Christ is THROUGH faith.
The Propitiation of Atonement is not given to all else all are born saved and THAT is your problem. We would have no need for faith and unbelief would not matter.


Where you state this :

How exactly does this disagree with what I have stated. Christ has made atonement for everyone but not all will recieve the propitiation (atonement) which is GIVEN through faith as scripture states. Therefore, though He has tasted death on behalf of all, the acceptance of it through faith is salvation, but rejection of it is damnation. Why? Because Christ already made the atonement for their sin debt, but to refuse now it makes them personally accountable for their own sin debt and thus eternally condemned because they can never make good the balance on their own merits.

 

Allan said...

Going by 1 John, what sins of Cain did Christ die for?

 

What "facts" have you presented? I'd consider them true statements if they were backed up by scripture rather than conjecture. I don't believe that the sins of OT times were covered until the coming of Christ. There was a First Covenant which they were subject to. Are you claiming that the FC was meaningless? Christ came to establish a New Covenant.

 

EDITTED

Same as mine and yours and Pauls and Peters...