• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Who did Christ die for?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Lou Martuneac

New Member
Who did Jesus Christ die for?

What does the Bible say?

“All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all,” (Isaiah 53:6).

“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).

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
 

menageriekeeper

Active Member
Amy said:
menageriekeeper said:
Christ died for all who would believe in Him during their life on earth,

That is limited atonement.



So, though God intended Christ's sacrifice to be sufficient for all, all are not saved because of their own unbelief.

This is general atonement or universal atonement.


Which do you believe, since you seem to be saying you believe both?

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?
 

Jarthur001

Active Member
Lou Martuneac said:
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

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?


1Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of 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...

10Yet 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.

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

Notice John 12..
Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.

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

12Therefore 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 .....(now get this)
he bare the sin of many
, and made intercession for the transgressors.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jarthur001

Active Member
I'll let Pink address 1 John 2:2

THERE is one passage more than any other which is I appealed to by those who believe in universal redemption, and which at first sight appears to teach that Christ died for the whole human race. We have therefore decided to give it a detailed examination and exposition.
"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). This is the passage which, apparently, most favors the Arminian view of the Atonement, yet if it be considered attentively it will be seen that it does so only in appearance, and not in reality. Below we offer a number of conclusive proofs to show that this verse does not teach that Christ has propitiated God on behalf of all the sins of all men.

In the first place, the fact that this verse opens with "and" necessarily links it with what has gone before. We, therefore, give a literal word for word translation of I John 2 :1 from Bagster's Interlinear: "Little children my, these things I write to you, that ye may not sin; and if any one should sin, a Paraclete we have with the Father, Jesus Christ (the) righteous". It will thus be seen that the apostle John is here writing to and about the saints of God. His immediate purpose was two-fold: first, to communicate a message that would keep God's children from sinning; second, to supply comfort and assurance to those who might sin, and, in consequence, be cast down and fearful that the issue would prove fatal. He, therefore, makes known to them the provision which God has made for just such an emergency. This we find at the end of verse 1 and throughout verse 2. The ground of comfort is twofold: let the downcast and repentant believer (1 John 1:9) be assured that, first, he has an "Advocate with the Father"; second, that this Advocate is "the propitiation for our sins" Now believers only may take comfort from this, for they alone have an "Advocate", for them alone is Christ the propitiation, as is proven by linking the Propitiation ("and") with "the Advocate"!

In the second place, if other passages in the New Testament which speak of "propitiation," he compared with 1 John 2:2, it will be found that it is strictly limited in its scope. For example, in Romans 3 :25 we read that God set forth Christ "a propitiation through faith in His blood". If Christ is a propitiation "through faith", then He is not a "propitiation" to those who have no faith! Again, in Hebrews 2:17 we read, "To make propitiation for the sins of the people." (Heb. 2:17, R. V.)

In the third place, who are meant when John says, "He is the propitiation for our sins"? We answer, Jewish believers. And a part of the proof on which we base this assertion we now submit to the careful attention of the reader.
In Galatians 2:9 we are told that John, together with James and Cephas, were apostles "unto the circumcision" (i.e. Israel). In keeping with this, the Epistle of James is addressed to "the twelve tribes, which are scattered abroad" (1:1). So, the first Epistle of Peter is addressed to "the elect who are sojourners of the Dispersion" (1 Pet. 1:1, R. V.). And John also is writing to saved Israelites, but for saved Jews and saved Gentiles.
Some of the evidences that John is writing to saved Jews are as follows. (a) In the opening verse he says of Christ, "Which we have seen with our eyes . . . . and our hands have handled". How impossible it would have been for the Apostle Paul to have commenced any of his epistles to Gentile saints with such language!
(b) "Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning" (1 John 2:7). The "beginning" here referred to is the beginning of the public manifestation of Christ-in proof compare 1:1 ; 2:13, etc. Now these believers the apostle tells us, had the "old commandment" from the beginning. This was true of Jewish believers, but it was not true of Gentile believers.
(c) "I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known Him from the beginning" (2:13). Here, again, it is evident that it is Jewish believers that are in view.
(d) "Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that Antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. They went out from us, but they were not of us" (2:18, 19).
These brethren to whom John wrote had "heard" from Christ Himself that Antichrist should come (see Matthew 24). The "many antichrists" whom John declares "went out from us" were all Jews, for during the first century none but a Jew posed as the Messiah. Therefore, when John says "He is the propitiation for our sins" he can only mean for the sins of Jewish believers.*

In the fourth place, when John added, "And not for ours only, but also for the whole world", he signified that Christ was the propitiation for the sins of Gentile believers too, for, as previously shown, "the world" is a term contrasted from Israel. This interpretation is unequivocally established by a careful comparison of 1 John 2:2 with John 11:51, 52, which is a strictly parallel passage: "And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; And not for that nation only, but that also He should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad". Here Caiaphas, under inspiration, made known for whom Jesus should "die". Notice now the correspondency of his prophecy with this declaration of John's:
"He is the propitiation for our (believing Israelites) sins."
"He prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation."
"And not for ours only." "And not for that nation only."
"But also for the whole world"-That is, Gentile believers scattered throughout the earth.
"He should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad."

In the fifth place, the above interpretation is confirmed by the fact that no other is consistent or intelligible. If the "whole world" signifies the whole human race, then the first clause and the "also" in the second clause are absolutely meaningless. If Christ is the propitiation for every-body, it would be idle tautology to say, first, "He is the propitiation for our sins and also for everybody". There could be no "also" if He is the propitiation for the entire human family. Had the apostle meant to affirm that Christ is a universal propitiation he had omitted the first clause of verse 2, and simply said, "He is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world." Confirmatory of "not for ours (Jewish believers) only, but also for the whole world"-Gentile believers, too; compare John 10:16; 17:20.

In the sixth place, our definition of "the whole world" is in perfect accord with other passages in the New Testament. For example: "Whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the Gospel; which is come unto you, as it is in all the world" (Col. 1:5,6). Does "all the world" here mean, absolutely and unqualifiedly, all mankind? Had all the human family heard the Gospel? No; the apostle's obvious meaning is that, the Gospel, instead of being confined to the land of Judea, had gone abroad, without restraint, into Gentile lands. So in Romans 1:8: "First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world". The apostle is here referring to the faith of these Roman saints being spoken of in a way of commendation. But certainly all mankind did not so speak of their faith! It was the whole world of believers that he was referring to! In Revelation 12:9 we read of Satan "which deceiveth the whole world". But again this expression cannot be understood as a universal one, for Matthew 24 :24 tells us that Satan does not and cannot "deceive" God's elect. Here it is "the whole world" of unbelievers.

In the seventh place, to insist that "the whole world" in 1 John 2:2 signifies the entire human race is to undermine the very foundations of our faith. If Christ is the propitiation for those that are lost equally as much as for those that are saved, then what assurance have we that believers too may not be lost? If Christ is the propitiation for those now in hell, what guarantee have I that I may not end in hell? The blood-shedding of the incarnate Son of God is the only thing which can keep any one out of hell, and if many for whom that precious blood made propitiation are now in the awful place of the damned, then may not that blood prove inefficacious for me! Away with such a God-dishonoring thought.

However men may quibble and wrest the Scriptures, one thing is certain: The Atonement is no failure. God will not allow that precious and costly sacrifice to fail in accomplishing, completely, that which it was designed to effect. Not a drop of that holy blood was shed in vain. In the last great Day there shall stand forth no disappointed and defeated Saviour, but One who "shall see of the travail of His soul and be satisfied" (Isa. 53:11). These are not our words, but the infallible assertion of Him who declares, "My counsel shall stand, and I will do all My pleasure" (Isa. 64:10). Upon this impregnable rock we take our stand. Let others rest on the sands of human speculation and twentieth-century theorizing if they wish. That is their business. But to God they will yet have to render an account. For our part we had rather be railed at as a narrow-minded, out-of-date, hyper-Calvinist, than be found repudiating God's truth by reducing the Divinely-efficacious atonement to a mere fiction.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

menageriekeeper

Active Member
That is some twisting of the Word to get those definitions of the word 'world'. :eek:

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. :eek:
 
Jarthur001 said:
I'll let Pink address 1 John 2:2

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

THERE is one passage more than any other which is I appealed to by those who believe in universal redemption

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.
 

Jarthur001

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

In the seventh place, to insist that "the whole world" in 1 John 2:2 signifies the entire human race is to undermine the very foundations of our faith. If Christ is the propitiation for those that are lost equally as much as for those that are saved, then what assurance have we that believers too may not be lost? If Christ is the propitiation for those now in hell, what guarantee have I that I may not end in hell? The blood-shedding of the incarnate Son of God is the only thing which can keep any one out of hell, and if many for whom that precious blood made propitiation are now in the awful place of the damned, then may not that blood prove inefficacious for me! Away with such a God-dishonoring thought.

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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Isaiah40:28

New Member
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.
 

Allan

Active Member
Jarthur001 said:
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.
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:
1Jo 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world.

1Jo 5:19 [And] we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.
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.
Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Rev 16:14 For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, [which] go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.
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.
Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth [to be] a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Isaiah40:28 said:
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.
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>
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Allan

Active Member
Isaiah40:28 said:
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.
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. :eek: 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! :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Allan

Active Member
Alex Quackenbush said:
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 indigenous because it CLEARLY does not represent the majority view of those here posting that hold to UNLIMITED ATONEMENT>
True that!!
 

Lou Martuneac

New Member
What Does the Bible Say?

What does the Bible say?

“All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all,” (Isaiah 53:6).

“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).

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 Martuneac said:
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.
 

Allan

Active Member
Helen said:
Allan, when I go to John 3:16-18 and on, I find that it is unbelief that condemns a man, not his sin. The law was fulfilled by Jesus. Fully. All sin is atoned for, but not all forgiven. And, in fact, there is one that CANNOT be forgiven, atoned for or not -- the sin against the Holy Spirit. Jesus said the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth (and He is The Truth...). If we follow this through with referencing to Romans 1, we find that what a man does with the truth he is presented with in his life has everything to do with whether or not he will be saved. Wanting the truth, he can be led to the Son by the Father, which is salvation, or he can be given over to the lie, thereby allowing his evil to multiply in his life.

But all that evil has still been atoned for -- which makes their condemnation all the more fierce.

The idea of the 'application' of atonement is not found in the Bible. It is entirely a human idea. Hebrews says Christ died once for all and tasted death for EVERYONE. Either that is a lie or the truth.
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:
Rom 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one [judgment came] upon all men to 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.
Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth [to be] a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
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 :
Hebrews says Christ died once for all and tasted death for EVERYONE.
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.
 

Jarthur001

Active Member
Allan said...
Did Christ die for Cain? According to John He did, so I place my bet with John.

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

1Jo 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world.
 

JustChristian

New Member
Allan said:
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 condending 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. :eek: 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! :)

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.
 

Allan

Active Member
Jarthur001 said:
Allan said...


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

Same as mine and yours and Pauls and Peters...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top