AVBunyan,
I never said Christ died for all mankind.
I know, you actually denied it. But the fact, the historical fact, is that the Gospel was given and understood that Christ did not just die for all mankind, but also saved all mankind from the fall. It is the very meaning of the words, redemption, reconcile, justify man to God through the Work of Christ on the Cross.
So, if your view is Scriptural, follows the "rule of faith" has always been understood this way then you should have no trouble is explaning this within your view.
If you want to simply show that it is your view among many views, that it does not align with the historical witness of the Gospel, just say so. There is nothing wrong with that approach either.
Those views are legion, but you are welcome to one of them.
Finally - your explanation on Christ being your authority and not scripture is sad. Sounds like your authority lie in men.
Yes, Christ working through men. As He has since Adam. God does not operate in a vaccum. We do exist for a reason. Christianity is a universal Gospel. Christ is that unity. Salvation is not a smorgasborg and it is not just choosing which one, nor having the authority to create the faith we desire, all from a book which was never meant to be the foundation of Truth. Christ is the foundation and the Apostles are the first bricks in that building. No where is the Bible even remotely given as an authority, let alone isolated from its whole content and context.
BTW - what does this have to with the original post?
It bears on the fact that you claimed that Christ forgave all the sins on the Cross, that a believer does not need to seek repentance or even make confession.
Up to this point, you have not shown that it is scriptural in that it follows the "rule of faith" from the beginning. You keep avoiding the historical fact of the Incarnation and the meaning of the Incarnation as understood at the time of the Councils and has not been changed since.
To save you the time, since time is so important to you, it means that Christ assumed our fallen natures and through the Incarnation overcame death and restored our mortal natures to immortality and incorruptibility. All men, mankind were given life.
So, if you want to insist that Christ also forgave all the sins on the Cross, then please explain to me why that would not be a form of Universalism. At least rationalize that for me so I can better understand your view.
jgredline apparently does not understand this point either. Maybe he should help you to explain your view in that light.
It is true that you do not need to prove anything. But if you make a statement such as you did, and I have shown that the understanding of scripture on that particular view with all the texts to the contrary, then I would think it might behoove you to at least show that either I am wrong, the Church is wrong, has always been wrong and the Gospel and His Church actually has never been preserved through the ages as Christ promised He would. Leaves a lot of doubt that He might not be as reliable as He states.
If, per chance, you are not actually claiming that your view is the Gospel ONCE given and it matters not that it was or was not actually believed and is not the very basis of Christianity, then I can accept that as well.
So, can either of you explain how your view is justified given all the texts I quoted twice now. Then we might have the answer to, Did Christ actually forgive all sins on the Cross.
Once you do that, then you have the added work to justify it with Mec, who I believe, is also a protestant. He has it understood correctly, why not you.