The Myth of saying that Jesus Christ died for all men without exception !

[Drew]

The Lion is pre-programmed by nature to kill. Lions kill people. Such a think is evil, and therefore Loins are predestined to evil. Nevertheless, humans will hold them responsible for their evil and kill them, or chase them off if they come to close to human habitat.

* In other words, the nature of a creature, or its "pre-programming, has nothing to do with its responsibility. The Lion may not have much of a choice, but it is still responsible for its behavior.

I do not agree and maintain that the very concept of responsibility entails "choice". That is, an agent cannot be deemed to be responsible for any action of which it has no degree of freedom to "choose".

However, a word is just a word. I am willing to allow for a definition of "responsibility" that is stripped of "freedom". That's fine, as long as you do not try to play it both ways, saying on the one hand that responsibility can exist in the absence of free will, and on the other hand saying that an agent is "morally culpable" for an action over which it has no control.

I would strongly suggest that it is simply conceptually inchorent to say an agent can be "responsible in the specifically morally culpable" sense for an action over it which it has no control.

I suspect, but only suspect, that you think otherwise. If so, I suspect we are at an impasse. If it turns out that you believe that an agent can be "morally culpable" for actions over which it has no control, I think you are taking a highly unusual position that almost all would disagree with. But if you do believe such a thing, please, feel free to try to convince me.

So back to the lion. While I would agree it is reasonable for a human to kill a lion who is "programmed" to kill humans, I would not say that the lion is "responsible" in any kind of "morally culpable sense (even if we allow the possibility of a moral faculty in lions).

Yes, the lion is responsible in the sense that it is the "agent" that kills human beings.

Anyway, I am not sure whether any of this is relevant to the primary issue which we are discussing. I will address the rest of your post later.

 

[mondar]

I do not agree and maintain that the very concept of responsibility entails "choice". That is, an agent cannot be deemed to be responsible for any action of which it has no degree of freedom to "choose".

However, a word is just a word. I am willing to allow for a definition of "responsibility" that is stripped of "freedom". That's fine, as long as you do not try to play it both ways, saying on the one hand that responsibility can exist in the absence of free will, and on the other hand saying that an agent is "morally culpable" for an action over which it has no control.

I would strongly suggest that it is simply conceptually inchorent to say an agent can be "responsible in the specifically morally culpable" sense for an action over it which it has no control.

I suspect, but only suspect, that you think otherwise. If so, I suspect we are at an impasse. If it turns out that you believe that an agent can be "morally culpable" for actions over which it has no control, I think you are taking a highly unusual position that almost all would disagree with. But if you do believe such a thing, please, feel free to try to convince me.

So back to the lion. While I would agree it is reasonable for a human to kill a lion who is "programmed" to kill humans, I would not say that the lion is "responsible" in any kind of "morally culpable sense (even if we allow the possibility of a moral faculty in lions).

Yes, the lion is responsible in the sense that it is the "agent" that kills human beings.

Anyway, I am not sure whether any of this is relevant to the primary issue which we are discussing. I will address the rest of your post later.

Drew,
I should just wait for you to respond to what I said last about Eph 2. If I get too many discussions going, I cannot keep up.

I just want to mention what I see as causing human responsibility. It is not human ability, but God's revelation. I would quote Romans 1:20.
20 For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse:
According to this verse, it is the natural revelation of God that causes men to be without excuse, and that is the biblical source for human "responsibility."

More then this, the essence of the teaching in Romans 9 denies that ability is necessary for responsibility. It does not matter if you read it as nations alone (although you once admitted a personal element in Romans 9 also). The issue of this text is that there is responsibility even if there is no ability.
20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why didst thou make me thus?
*** Can we shift responsibility to God in this concext with the Argument "I was not able." Is that argument not identical to the "O man" in this verse who complains "why didst thou make me thus?" Clearly "O man" was not created with the ability to fullfill what God required of him. God made "O man" responsible for for something he could not do in this context.

 

[savedbygrace57]

Rom 5:6 - For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.
​

So actually Christ died for everyone but Himself! Which in a perverse way, as Jesus was both man and God, proves the thread title correct; Jesus is the exception!:shocked

:rolling

The we in rom 5:6 refers to believers, for believers, the elect, are ungodly by nature..

 

[savedbygrace57]

faitht:

but 1st John 2:2 says that Jesus was the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD!

Sure, the Whole world of the elect, jew and gentile, but this scripture says nothing about Christ dying for everyone without exception..Anyone who has had their sins propitiated, God can never punish them for sin again..

 

[Alabaster]

faitht:



Sure, the Whole world of the elect, jew and gentile, but this scripture says nothing about Christ dying for everyone without exception..Anyone who has had their sins propitiated, God can never punish them for sin again..

Of course the scriptures are clear about this! Jesus' blood was shed for the WHOLE WORLD! You need to accept that by faith, if your mind is having trouble with the concept.

I don't understand why you would think that God would punish anyone even once, let alone twice whose sins have been cleansed. Care to explain?

 

[francisdesales]

Sure, the Whole world of the elect, jew and gentile, but this scripture says nothing about Christ dying for everyone without exception..Anyone who has had their sins propitiated, God can never punish them for sin again..

What part of "whole world" aren't you getting??? God's love extends to all men, not just random people He chose at the beginning of time. The purpose of the elect is to manifest His love to everyone else THROUGH them, not to only save certain people. God desires ALL men to be saved (1 Tim 2:1-5)

Regards

 

[savedbygrace57]

What part of "whole world" aren't you getting??? God's love extends to all men, not just random people He chose at the beginning of time. The purpose of the elect is to manifest His love to everyone else THROUGH them, not to only save certain people. God desires ALL men to be saved (1 Tim 2:1-5)

Regards

All those Christ died for, shall be made righteous rom 5:


19For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

Now ask yourself, shall the whole world without exception be made righteous ? If not, why not according to this verse ?

 

[savedbygrace57]

That Christ saved all for whom He died is proved by the various scripture analogies that Paul uses, especially in rom 5.

I have witnessed to that fact in this thread under the heading of rom 5:15 !


You see, Those Christ died for had a union with Him when He died and rose again..

This is Paul's point when He declares:

The fact that by the disobedience of one, that being Adam, many were made sinners ! Not offered to be made sinners, not being made sinners if they choose to be with their freewill, but they were made sinners, like it or not, made sinners..

Now this implies that those being made sinners had a life in Adam when Adam disobeyed God; now how was that true ? How did those who had a life in Adam and sinned when Adam sinned and died when He died get into Adam ?

All men were created in Adam is collaborated in acts 17:

26And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

Our Physical lives were present in Adam in the beginning when God said this:

Gen 1:

26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Thats why when Adam sinned, them sinned too by their being in union with Adam..

And now likewise, the fact of the obedience of one, and that one being the Lord Jesus Christ, many shall be made righteous ! not offered to be made righteous, not given a chance to be made righteous, but they are made righteous just as effectively as those being made sinners were..

This to implies that those who shall be made righteous had a life in Jesus Christ when He performed His act of obedience to God see phil 2:8 ! Now how was that True, how did those lives get into Christ for His obedience to work effectively on their behalf ?

Paul says in 1 cor 1:


30But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:

Of Him means its of God, that some were in Christ Jesus. They were in Him as they were in Adam, and as they experience the effects of Adam whom they had life in, so likewise they will experience the effects of Christ whom they had life in..

When Christ died for sin, their sins, they died 2 cor 5:

that if one died for all, then were all dead:

and when Christ rose from the dead after dying for their sins, they rose from the dead with Him, Justified of their sins He died for eph:

5Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved)

6And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus

So this being said, Christ died only for those who had a union and life in Him, and this could not be said of those who Christ will soon say these words to:

Matt 7:

23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

For Christ did know intimately all those who had life and union with Him when He died on the cross for their sins...

 

[Pizzaguy]

It is amazing to me, as a newcomer to this site, that this discussion could go on for so long.

Christ died for all - it is not God's will that any should perish. Is this not clear?

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

"Whoever believes" - sounds simple enough to me.

 

[Eventide]

It is amazing to me, as a newcomer to this site, that this discussion could go on for so long.

Christ died for all - it is not God's will that any should perish. Is this not clear?

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

"Whoever believes" - sounds simple enough to me.

Amen to that Pizzaguy... and I'll take a Large Pepperoni to go !

 

[francisdesales]

All those Christ died for, shall be made righteous rom 5:


19For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

Now ask yourself, shall the whole world without exception be made righteous ? If not, why not according to this verse ?

Where does it say all will be made righteous? Here is the verse before:

Therefore as by the offence of one [judgment came] upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one [the free gift came] upon all men unto justification of life. Romans 5:18

The free gift comes upon all men. But all men will not become righteous. Some will reject it.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

It is amazing to me, as a newcomer to this site, that this discussion could go on for so long.

Christ died for all - it is not God's will that any should perish. Is this not clear?

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

"Whoever believes" - sounds simple enough to me.

Calvinist-types refuse to read what the Bible says, unless it fits into their theology invented by Calvin. Thus, they must add words like "alone" or "only the elect" to scripture verses that do not necessitate that addition. Naturally, the "world" is changed to mean only the elect, even if it doesn't fit the context.

Regards

 

[Drew]

....but let me go through the text and demonstrate how verses 1 to 10 are a unit that speaks of human inability.

Verses 1-3..... 1 And you did he make alive, when ye were dead through your trespasses and sins,
2 wherein ye once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the powers of the air, of the spirit that now worketh in the sons of disobedience;
3 among whom we also all once lived in the lust of our flesh, doing the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest:--
***Verse 1 begins with a presentation of the problem of all men. They are born dead in sins and trespasses.

True but this in no way undermines the force of earliar arguments. You are in a very challenging position: Paul has referred to "works" that do not save in verse 9 and then writes a "therefore" paragpraph which literally screams "this paragraph is the outworking of some statement that undermines Jewish privelege over the Gentile"

And, of course, a statement that the works of the Law of Moses do not save is the perfect candidate. This is why we have every reason to suppose that the "works" that do not save are the works of the Law of Moses - if it were otherwise, the Jew would indeed have grounds for a boast of privilege over the Gentile.

I am not entirely sure that the first 10 verses really do not entail an implicit acknowledgement of a Jew-Gentile divide. After all, verse 3 clearly discloses that Paul is thinking in terms of at least two groups (note the phrase "even as the rest"). But even if these 10 verses are universal in their application and imply no sense of a Jew-Gentile split, such a split is clearly present in the verses that matter - 11 and following. And since the author has set verse 11 and following as a "therefore" outworking of what has proceeded, we are literally forced, if we are to honour the fine-grained details, to conclude that Paul has just written something that undermines Jewish privelege.

And a denial of salvation by works of the Law of Moses is precisely such a statement. By contast - and this is the really important point - a denial of salvation by "good works" in no sense evokes the Jew-Gentile fault line and, as such, in no way sets up a "therefore" passage of the type we actually get.
.

 

[Drew]

***First, you read man as not dead and in rebellion. You see man as still capable of pleasing God and doing good works.

Please stop with these statements that you surely know are untrue. You have done this in the past and you continue to do it - I do not see how your misrepresentation can be anything but deliberate.

Mondar, you know full well, that I do not believe in the position you repeatedly misrepresent me as holding. In particular, I suggest you know full well that I only believe what you have asserted I believe if a number of extremely important qualifying remarks are added.

 

[Drew]

4 but God, being rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, 5 even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace have ye been saved),
**** Now the term "made alive" is not something we can do to ourselves by our own works. That is something your interpretation demands.

Untrue - please do not misrepresent me. My interpretation demands no such thing. Again, this behaviour is exceedingly discouraging since I have every reason to believe that you know that you are saying false things about what I believe.

 

[savedbygrace57]

francis:

Where does it say all will be made righteous?

Can you read ? Rom 5:


19For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

The many Christ gave His life for shall be made righteous..Matt 20:28

Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.


I believe the many in rom 5 19 b are the same in matt 20 28..

The giving His life a ransom equals by the obedience of one..

You see, His death was obedience phil 2:8

And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

The Christ I serve by His death for the many, they the many shall be made righteous...

 

[francisdesales]

francis:

Can you read ? Rom 5:

19For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

I think you are the one with the reading problem.
I said where does it say "all will be made righteous" in verse 18? ALL are OFFERED GRACE!!! Not all are made righteous.

Combine verse 18 and 19 together. All will be offered God's grace, and many will be made righteous, but not all.

Paul distinguishes between "many" and "all". Of course many will be made righteous, but ALL will be made the offer of grace from God... Paul is writing and uses the two different descriptions in two separate sentences linked. He would have used "all" or "many" both times if he wanted to mean the same group of people would be offered and would be made righteous. However, he didn't. There are two different groups of people. One is "all" the other is "many".

The many Christ gave His life for shall be made righteous..Matt 20:28

Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

Different context. Paul is not Matthew.

I believe the many in rom 5 19 b are the same in matt 20 28..

Based upon what??? They are diffferent authors writing to different people. You have no basis for saying that "many" of one means the exact same thing as "many" of the other.

The giving His life a ransom equals by the obedience of one..

You see, His death was obedience phil 2:8

Of course His death was obedience, that is not questioned. What is at stake is whether God desires all men to be saved, whether God's Son died for the sake of the world, whether Jesus is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.

Regards

 

[savedbygrace57]

The effects of the Death of Christ !

Scriptures that show the efficaciousness of the death of Christ, that it actually saves, and so those who are not being saved, Christ did not die for them..

Jn 12:


23And Jesus answered them, saying, The hour is come, that the Son of man should be glorified.

24Verily, 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.

Christ saving death is how He is Glorified..

Jesus here in these verses is speaking of Himself and the Church, His body.. For it shall come forth out of death with Him, a Living and Spotless Church, Justified by His blood and righteousness.

Its a faithful saying, if we be dead with Him, that is died when He died [ 2 cor 5:14-15] we shall also live with Him, that is experience the power of His resurrection..

All for whom He died, will be raised from spiritual death, begotten unto a lively hope, how ? By the resurrection from the dead 1 pet 1:


3Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

So as Jesus states in Jn 12 24, His death [ to include His resurrection] brings forth much fruit..That is, it actually produces positive results and benefits for them He died..

 

[Pizzaguy]

Amen to that Pizzaguy... and I'll take a Large Pepperoni to go !

And you will PAY for it, too. :yes

 

[savedbygrace57]

The word fruit in Jn 12:24 -



Jesus stated [speaking of His death and being Glorified thereby] that if a corn of wheat [Himself] falls to the ground [His crucifixion and death] and dies, It [Himself, the corn of wheat] bringeth forth
much fruit..

That is He is the effective cause via His death of bringing forth or producing fruit ..

The greek word for fruit is:

karpos and means:

the fruit of one's loins, i.e. his progeny, his posterity

He brings forth much posterity, his progeny, or His seed..

For this is spoken of in Isa 53 as a result of His sufferings for those He bare their iniquities notice:

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.

That word seed is the hebrew zera` which means:

offspring, descendants, posterity, children

And this seed or posterity shall serve Him...as per ps 22:

30A seed shall serve him; it shall be accounted to the Lord for a generation.

Now look at vs 26 of John 12 right after Jesus speaks about bringing forth fruit in vs 24 :

26If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall also my servant be: if any man serve me, him will my Father honour.

You see, Jesus through His vicarious death will produce a seed that shall serve Him..

This seed will be of all races of people, that is He will draw all races to Him, to serve Him..

And we know this is not the case for all men without exception, so therefore Christ death could not have been for all men without exception, unless it failed to bear fruit..