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

[ivdavid]

Continuing from my previous post....

Similarly, I see this whole doctrine of limited atonement arising because of what I think is this logical contradiction -
for a person who upholds "Salvation by Grace Alone" -
Statement 1 : We are saved only by Jesus Christ's sacrifice on the Cross.
Statement 2 : Jesus died for all the sins of all mankind without exception.
forces the following
Conclusion : All mankind is saved in Christ
which we know is not true and since Statement 1 is what their starting belief itself is, then Statement 2 has to be false for them.

Likewise, to a person who believes Statement 2 as a starting belief, Statement 1 has to be false.

I hold both statements to be true from what I've read in the Bible. Any logical contradictions could be because of wrong assumptions or faulty logic in me.

I think the mistake we're making is that we think of Christ's death on the cross as an independent event on the basis of which God pardons and justifies sinners. Why "Grace Alone" believers are reluctant to move further is that they fear that Grace might cease to be the only basis of salvation if we added any further parameter to Christ's death on the Cross and that is in a sense valid. But what use is it for Christ to sacrifice Himself on the cross if man is unaware of it - in other words, this is not a legalistic sacrifice to justify sinners, rather an act of love and grace towards justification and reconciliation. Jesus died on the cross to redeem me from the law of dead works by His sacrifice. I must believe that this is sufficient for my salvation and only then can I wholly throw myself upon Him. But if Christ's offer of salvation itself is exclusive and only for the elect, then what hope or assurance have I at that point of having my eyes opened(by God's grace) to see my own true sinful nature. I would condemn myself, faint under the guilt of sin, count myself unworthy of ever having Christ die for me and would perish. I would never have any assurance of salvation at that point in time if Christ's offer of salvation was not universal in nature, even though not all are saved. How could I ever know if I'm part of the elect then.

No, what happens is that I throw myself on Christ alone believing He died for me too and later realize that I was chosen by God entirely by His mercy alone according to His purpose alone and not according to anything I did. But faith is indeed an added criteria - not to be the basis of salvation - faith is the medium of receiving that grace. And since faith too is given by God, salvation indeed is by grace alone and still I can hold that Christ died for all men. Besides, it abounds to the glory of God that He has been so patient with people who rejected Jesus Christ in that inspite of His universal offer of grace, they clung on to their own evil deeds and hence stored for themselves the greater condemnation, commending at the same time the righteousness of God (John 3:18-20 ; Romans 3:4-8).


Just to clarify, faith being an added criteria necessary for salvation does not make it the basis of my salvation. Jesus Christ's work on the cross is always the basis of our salvation. The paradox of faith is that it is to be exercised in me but cannot be counted as any work worthy of merit in me because faith must have an object of belief - and that is still Jesus Christ. When I say that I believe in Jesus Christ alone for my salvation, I'm actually surrendering to the fact that I can no longer look to myself for any good in my natural self, that I can 'do' nothing, 'work' nothing in order to be justified before God and that I already stand condemned for my sinful rebellion if not for Christ and that if I must be acquitted, it must be solely on the basis of what Christ 'worked' on the cross. Faith is not my 'work' because by its very definition, it depends completely on another's 'work'.

So,
Statement 1 : We are saved only by believing in the sufficiency of Jesus Christ's sacrifice on the Cross.
Statement 2 : Jesus died for all the sins of all mankind without exception.
Statement 3 : Not all believe in Jesus Christ.

Conclusion : Not all are saved.

 

[savedbygrace57]

Christ died only for those who believe ! -



So the death of Christ is that which causes or effects believing in Him as one of it's many fruits of accomplishment. Its through His Name [what He has done and accomplished] that some are believing and have remission of sins..

acts 10:43

To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.[/U

Believing comes through [because of, on account of] His Name !

God through Christ is credited for ones believing..Thats why Paul Thanks God here 2 thess 2:

13But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

Belief of the Truth is believing in Christ who is The Truth..

Jn 3:


14And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

15That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

The Lifting up of Christ [ His death on the cross] is the underlying cause of those believing on Him...

Believing is never a condition for eternal life, but a effect and evidence of Christ death for one..

It is given to believe in Him who died for them phil 1:


29For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ[because of His death], not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake;

Notice it is given to some to believe on Him..it was not offered them, but given as bestowed upon them to believe.

Given is aorist passive, so they received it because it was successfully given to them of God on Christ behalf..

So those who make believing on Christ a condition for receiving eternal life, do pervert the Truth, and steal that away from Christ which His death gives for His sake...

 

[savedbygrace57]

ivdavid:

So,
Statement 1 : We are saved only by believing in the sufficiency of Jesus Christ's sacrifice on the Cross.

False statement, for one believes because of the sufficiency of Christ sacrifice on the cross..

 

[ivdavid]

So those who make believing on Christ a condition for receiving eternal life, do pervert the Truth, ....

Please grant me the basic courtesy of reading through what I've written instead of 'proof-texting' my own post. Compare this with what I've written....

Just to clarify, faith being an added criteria necessary for salvation does not make it the basis of my salvation. Jesus Christ's work on the cross is always the basis of our salvation.

Read about the paradox of faith.

Notice it is given to some to believe on Him..

Compare the above with .....

And since faith too is given by God, salvation indeed is by grace alone and still I can hold that Christ died for all men.

it was not offered them, but given as bestowed upon them to believe.

You are making a presumptuous assumption here - you are assuming that there was no offer of grace that was rejected before God efficaciously gifted faith, righteousness and salvation to the elect. What is it to you if God, in His patience, has endured the rejection of all mankind in making the universal offer of salvation but then efficaciously gifts salvation to those of the elect.


Rom 10:13 For everyone, "whoever shall call on the name of the Lord will be saved."
Rom 10:14 How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed?....

This is a universal offer of grace to believe in Him. All men in the flesh will reject it because of sin in them and I'm including even the elect here - they too are by nature like the children of wrath at this point in time. But God then efficaciously gifts faith to the elect and lifts up the veil covering their minds to see their own wretchedness and the love of God in His Son, Jesus Christ, in whom they put their entire faith - the doctrine of regeneration.

 

[savedbygrace57]

ivdavid:

Please grant me the basic courtesy of reading through what I've written instead of 'proof-texting' my own post. Compare this with what I've written....

Its not going to change anything, those who make believing a condition for salvation instead of an evidence of it, pervert the Truth..

 

[savedbygrace57]

By Christ all who He died for are made righteous [believers]

That believing in Christ is a result of His death is plain because for all He died [ his obedience] shall many 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.

The word righteous here is the greek word
dikaios

Its also translated Just as here:

rom 5:

17For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

So the promise is that the Just shall [not maybe] live by Faith, that is they shall believe..

So this is a result and effect of the death or obedience of one, Jesus Christ..

 

[Lehigh3]

Re: By Christ all who He died for are made righteous [believers]

That believing in Christ is a result of His death is plain because for all He died [ his obedience] shall many 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.

The word righteous here is the greek word
dikaios

Its also translated Just as here:

rom 5:

17For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

So the promise is that the Just shall [not maybe] live by Faith, that is they shall believe..

So this is a result and effect of the death or obedience of one, Jesus Christ..

So I guess that Calvin & you didn't understand the meaning of the "Christ" or the "Messiah?"

No one is selecting the word "just" or "saved" or "righteous" except you. Research the "Christ" Why was the Jewish Messiah called the Christ?

Who went into the Holy of Holies ONCE for the sin of mankind, instead of the Jewish high priest every single year, for the forgiveness of sins?

Again, & I know you will want to have the last word- but I think most Christians are smarter than Calvin!

1)Christ is the Savior of the world. He died for SIN in the flesh for everyone. That's the Christ (John 4:39-42)That's the Scripture text you deny.
2)Then, those who believe this & in Him, are made the righteousness of Christ. Then, it was His will & desire that all be saved after that.

And to walk in the Spirit of love & not judgment (like the prodigal son's brother) that they are able to be saved, & not lost, in this life now, especially.

I think I rest my case. I cannot articulate it any better & I will not argue with you (which is carnal anyway)

God Bless you,
share the Faith,
in Christ.

 

[savedbygrace57]

leigh:

So I guess that Calvin & you didn't understand the meaning of the "Christ" or the "Messiah?"

Huh, where do you see anything about calvin in post 866 ?

 

[Lehigh3]

leigh:



Huh, where do you see anything about calvin in post 866 ?

You're ignoring the more important question. And I'll address it to you alone & not Calvin too.(after all, he's dead & cannot answer!)

Answer this question-
Why don't you believe the bible & what John 4:39-42 says?
Why do you insist that Christ died only for "believers?"

that's the myth - what you preach. I think you can do better for others- not just preach exclusivism.

Can you answer my question now. Let's see if you answer MY question. John 4:39-42, for example.

Explain the "Christ" the "Messiah" What does that word mean to you?

 

[savedbygrace57]

We know that Christ did not die for everyone without exception because of the efficaciousness of the results His death . His death actually perfects forever all those He died for !

Hebrews 10:

14For by one offering [His death] he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

Those who Christ offered Himself for in death, have been perfected forever and for this cause they shall be continuously being sanctified..

Its just impossible for Christ death not to produce this result..

 

[Easy Money 1776]

I'm just going to come out and say it: that is a lie from Satan. I could go and find scripture to rebuke you, but I'm tired and I can prove you wrong through logic. You argue that Jesus only died only for the Church. We know that the Church is the body of Christians. What makes one a Christian? Acceptance of atonement through the blood of Christ. So, what you are saying is that Jesus died to save the people who were already saved? As a believer, you are my brother. I love you. But you need to get out of those lies and that doctrine. Satan is telling you that to breed in you apathy and disregard of God's command to reach the world.

John 3:16 says that For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him would never perish, but have eternal life

 

[Lehigh3]

We know that Christ did not die for everyone without exception because of the efficaciousness of the results His death . His death actually perfects forever all those He died for !

Hebrews 10:

14For by one offering [His death] he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

Those who Christ offered Himself for in death, have been perfected forever and for this cause they shall be continuously being sanctified..

Its just impossible for Christ death not to produce this result..

Show me someone, in this life, who has been perfected (as the Father is perfect)
Even Paul said he hadn't entirely reached that perfection (or maturity in the faith) here on earth.
"We" as the Bible states, are being perfected, as a process throughout our Christian lives. No one is perfected until they get to heaven (spirits of just men made perfect).
But in the meantime, I hope you don't do much outreach for unbelievers or "sinners!" bc your theology condemns them & threatens them with an over religious & erroneous view of God's mercy & kindness for all that would come.
God made the sun to shine both on the evil & the good - no matter what your religion may dictate. The Bible is clear on that. No one is perfect here.

BTW, Hebrews is not the best example of scripture for you to use. Are you a Hebrew Christian? I don't think so. Because that is who the author of Hebrews is addressing.

The main thing is to let the ungodly see that Christ did indeed die for them too - Romans 4:3. Yes, by grace "we" are saved- but what does the scripture say also? If you have murder in your heart & don't love your brother- God will not bless that sin. So love your neighbor as Jesus commanded & don't do him any harm. And strive to be perfect, as we should, - by doing good works of holiness, bc you are saved by grace.
The gospel & kingdom of God IS available to all sinners. Make no mistake about that.
Revelation 22:17 NKJV,
17 And the Spirit and the bride say, “Come!†And let him who hears say, “Come!†And let him who thirsts come. Whoever desires, let him take the water of life freely.

 

[savedbygrace57]

leh:

Show me someone, in this life, who has been perfected (as the Father is perfect)

See post 870

 

[savedbygrace57]

All those that Christ died for are by that death reconciled to God and are assured of being saved by His Life ! per rom 5:

10For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

What can be more plainer than that ? So, if one is not saved, and goes into the lake of fire to be punished for their sins, then Christ death was not for them, its just that simple..

 

[ivdavid]

All those that Christ died for are by that death reconciled to God and are assured of being saved by His Life ! per rom 5:

True.

10For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

True.

So, if one is not saved, and goes into the lake of fire to be punished for their sins, then Christ death was not for them

This is faulty logic. In "By the death of His Son for us, we are reconciled", who does the "we/us" refer to? Is it 'we/us, the believers', or 'we/us,the unbelievers' or 'we/us, all mankind'?
The corresponding premises and permissible conclusions are as follows -

Premise 1 : By the death of His Son for us,the believers,... we,the believers, are reconciled.
Conclusion 1 : If we,the believers, are not reconciled then the Son did not die for us,the believers.

Premise 2 : By the death of His Son for us,the unbelievers,... we,the unbelievers, are reconciled.
Conclusion 2: If we,the unbelievers, are not reconciled then the Son did not die for us,the unbelievers.

Premise 3 : By the death of His Son for us,all mankind,... we,all mankind, are reconciled.
Conclusion 3: If we,all mankind, are not reconciled then the Son did not die for us,all mankind.

Obviously we know Premise 2 and 3 to be false. And hence their respective conclusions cannot be derived.
The problem lies in your deriving Conclusion 2 from Premise 1 - not possible.

its just that simple..

 

[Proverbs3/5]

ivdavid & Lehigh3 You might want to quit while you are ahead. We know the truth, and that is that Jesus Christ died for ALL mankind without exception, because ALL have sinned. There are some that only want to argue to the contrary. Although this is a "discussion", it is one without end if you believe that Christ did in fact die for ALL. There are some that will continue to debate and try to sway others away from the simple Gospel message that IS preached from cover to cover in the Holy Scriptures (Hebrew and New Testament).

 

[Pizzaguy]

So, if one is not saved, and goes into the lake of fire to be punished for their sins, then Christ death was not for them, its just that simple..

By THEIR choice, not God's.

Christ died for all.


(And yes, proverbs, I know I'm wasting my time.)

 

[Drew]

For eg.: A person who feels that God is unjust in showing partiality when He saves one and not another, will reject the whole theology of "Salvation by Grace Alone". No amount of citing verses from the Bible can ever change this person's belief because this underlying belief remains firm. Because of this foundational premise, he is also forced to believe the doctrine of "Salvation by Grace AND Works." For this person to understand a proponent of "salvation by grace alone", he will have to be shown that his basic premise need not necessarily be true - that God is not unjust or partial in showing mercy to one and not to another.

I think there is a problem with this example - you appear to deploy a hidden assumption about the meaning of "grace". I sense that your reasoning here is this:

Premise: Everyone agrees that not all human beings are ultimately saved and that not all human beings are ultimately lost.

1. A person (like me, by the way) who believes God does not show partiality in respect to the matter of final salvation believes that some human beings are eventually saved and some human beings are eventually lost (obvious from premise);

2. But if we are saved by grace alone, no human being can "do" anything at all to contribute to their ultimate salvation;

3. Therefore, if God really shows no partiality, and if humans can "do" nothing to contribute to our salvation, then God must either save all or all will be lost, precisely because the only agent capable of "contributing" to a man's salvation is God, and since God cannot be partial, all men must experience the same fate, whether that be loss or salvation;

4. Therefore, the person from item 1 has a belief that violates the premise.

This would be a valid argument except for something in point 2 - we need to analyze what Paul meant by the concept of "grace".

When someone makes the argument that "if its all God's grace, then there can be no human 'co-operation', no matter how miniscule", I think that the very concept of "grace" is being abused. A rigid mathematical kind of mind-set is brought to what, I suggest, is actually a concept which is actually much more fluid and ambiguous.

What I am trying to say is this: the way that the term "grace" is sometimes used, at least in english western cultures, indeed allows for some degree of co-operation. We would, I suggest, affirm that the giving of any gift, even if freely and wilfully accepted is, in fact, still seen to fall under the concept of "grace".

Unlike mathematical concepts, linguistic concepts often have a relatively broad “semantic range†(range of possible meanings). In the case of the concept of “graceâ€, that range includes, at one end, the notion that there can be no co-operation on the part of the one who receives grace. Fine.

But let’s not pretend that the range of possible meanings of “grace†excludes the more complicated case where the recipient of grace does indeed play some very limited role. We use the word “grace†in this more complicated mode all the time in everyday life.

At the risk of seeming cynical, I will assert that the Calvinist frequently simply “lays claim†to a specific part of the semantic range of the concept and works from there, their arguments building on and leveraging this particular, selective, interpretation on what the term “grace†actually means.

If you commit to the position that the concept “graceâ€, by its very definition, rules out human co-operation, then of course the Calvinist position is easily established. But we all know that language is more sophisticated, subtle, and ambiguous than that. It is really beyond question, in our time and culture at least, that the word “grace†has an effective range of meanings that include senses in which the recipient of grace actually participates in some sense. And you would need to make the case that this was not so for Paul in order for your argument to stand.

 

[cleanfreak]

By THEIR choice, not God's.

Christ died for all.


(And yes, proverbs, I know I'm wasting my time.)

+1 pizza guy.

sbg57---........if Christ did not die for ALL, then why do we have to wait until ALL nations hear about Jesus before the end comes as stated in Mathew 24:14? What would be the purpose of waiting?

 

[ivdavid]

You might want to quit while you are ahead.

I understand that there is nothing to be gained in the wrangling of words. And I absolutely don't agree with the reasoning of savedbygrace57. But this is not to say that sbg57 doesn't have a case. You see, we can't accuse sbg57 of being close-minded while we shut our minds to what problem he seems to be having in believing what we believe. Nothing is without cause.

Bear with me while we consider Lev 16 - the day of atonement. (If this has already been dealt with in the earlier pages, pardon my repetition)
The high priest (Lev 16:32-33) is to take up the following -
1. A bullock for a sin offering, atoning for himself and his household.
2. Two goats -
2a) One for a sin offering for the people of Israel(Lev 16:15)
2b) One for a scapegoat
3. A ram for a burnt offering.

After the high priest atones for himself and his house by presenting the bullock as a sin offering, he casts lots and offers one goat for a sin offering for the people of Israel. He sprinkles the blood before the mercy seat in the Holy of Holies (Heb 9:22). Then he confesses and lays upon the second goat's head, all the iniquities of Israel and sets it loose in the wilderness as a scapegoat. Then, after ritual washings, he offers the ram as burnt offering (Lev16:24) as a sweet savour unto the Lord (Num 29:2). This is the atonement for the children of Israel.

The requirements set out under the Law were to reveal knowledge about God. Remission of sins was not possible without the spilling of blood - in other words, the wages of sin is death. But in order to spare the life of a sinner, a spotless/blameless lamb had to take his place. The first goat was the sin offering that manifested God's justice - that all sin must be condemned. And yet there was the second goat as scapegoat that was sent into the wilderness with all the sins laid on its head. While this typified the expiation and absolute removal of sins, why was this not represented in the first goat's sin offering itself. I think it was to show that that first goat's sin offering was only a sign of covering up sins and that the goat's sacrifice itself did not remove any sins. The second goat was a reminder that the blood of an animal sacrifice did not take away sins (Heb 10:4).

The above are the (worldly)shadow of real (spiritual)things to come. Jesus Christ is our High Priest after the order of Melchisedec. He is sinless and thereby requires no bullock sin offering for Himself. He enters the Holy of Holies, and presents His own blood as a sin offering for _____. The second goat is not needed because Christ's blood is sufficient to remove all sins. Not being bound by time, God did this, once and for all, remitting all the sins of ____ across all time and generations. Jesus Christ Himself is the burnt offering as a sweet savour unto God (Eph 5:2).

If I were to fill the blanks using analogy, then 'the spiritual Israel' is what I'd fill the blanks with. The nation of Israel, like many other things in the OT, was a shadow of the real (spiritual) Israel - namely the Church in the NT. So, I imagine a person like savedbygrace57 would ask this - did the high priest in the OT perform atonement for the whole world or for the children of Israel. The answer is given in Scripture. Then why must not this shadow depict that in reality, our High Priest, Jesus Christ, performed atonement only for the children of promise/real (spiritual)Israel/ the Church and not for the whole world?

I surely do not find Christ pleading the case of the lost here or in the O.T. Sanctuary day of Atonement!

In that sense, I really do believe sbg57 is not without a case.


Please, treat what I've laid here on its own merit and don't accuse me of "spouting lies of satan". I am only refusing to ignore the conflicts and stumbling blocks here, created out of our own lack in understanding and not owing to any ambiguity in the Bible. As for me, from the above understanding, I believe in limited atonement in this sense and I also believe that Jesus died for all men in the world. You might say I'm holding contradictory positions but it's only contradictory according to our own logic which has to be faulty because I gather both the above positions from Scripture. The resolution to this apparent contradiction is not in writing off one part of Scripture but to look inwardly into our own assumptions and understanding/logic.