Did Christ die for all men?

Sonnet · Apr 21, 2016

Ask Mr. Religion said:
I have answered you and you continue to return to the same position. You seem to ignore any answer you disagree with.

We are disagreeing with each other, yes.

It does seem that you have a slightly altered version of the Gospel for unbelievers compared to that which is delivered to believers. Paul makes no such distinction and simply declares 'this is what we preach'.

The passage is an institution of the Supper, hence cup-blood. Who celebrates the Supper? I think you know. Again, you are playing hermeneutical hopscotch hoping to make an argument that is simply not possible.

AMR

Rather, Judas is at the table whilst Jesus declares that his blood is poured out for 'you'.

That Christ died for all men, as scripture states over and over, is the good news and is why it is so powerful.

Christ dying for a select few is something quite different. It is a different Gospel.

Sonnet · Apr 21, 2016

Ask Mr. Religion said:
I have answered you and you continue to return to the same position. You seem to ignore any answer you disagree with.
AMR

It shouldn't be difficult to respond to the question about how many Gospels there are.

Ask Mr. Religion · Apr 21, 2016

Sonnet said:
That Christ died for all men, as scripture states over and over, is the good news and is why it is so powerful.

Scripture does not so state over and over. You only want it to state that. Our Lord's atonement was exactly that...actual atonement. Not potential, awaiting feeble man's wise decision-making to "accept Jesus into my heart" thereby making God a debtor to their wise choice, while their neighbor was apparently too stupid to choose wisely.

AMR

Sonnet · Apr 21, 2016

Ask Mr. Religion said:
Scripture does not so state over and over. You only want it to state that. Our Lord's atonement was exactly that...actual atonement. Not potential, awaiting feeble man's wise decision-making to "accept Jesus into my heart" thereby making God a debtor to their wise choice, while their neighbor was apparently too stupid to choose wisely.

AMR

But AMR, you are making assertions.
I accept that God is sovereign.

Ben Masada · Apr 22, 2016

Sonnet said:
Romans 11:25
For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

Matthew 23:39 (Jesus to Jerusalem)
For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

The Hellenist who wrote the gospel applied to Matthew was that day taken by the Pauline spirit to convert the Jews when he added one more motif to cause more and more trouble to the Jews: To blame the Jews for the too long a time, no matter how
long it would take for Jesus to return. It has been 2000 years and instead of blaming those who predicted Jesus' return, they chose to blame the Jews and keep on with the waiting.

Ask Mr. Religion · Apr 22, 2016

Sonnet said:
It shouldn't be difficult to respond to the question about how many Gospels there are.

There is only one gospel, and every page of the Bible speaks to the Gospel, for each page tells the truth about God, about man, about Christ, and about salvation--these truths we call the Gospel.

So if you are looking for that gospel, and not some pithy statement that fits on a pledge card, or a few sentences open to all manner of interpretation, here then are Scripture's teachings about that which we call the gospel:

Spoiler

AMR

Ben Masada · Apr 22, 2016

Sonnet said:
Romans 9:30-33
What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Therefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone; As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

Sonnet, the Law of righteousness was not given to attend a certain aim and say, "I am done." The Law was given as a way of life so that we can live in peace with each other.

Lon · Apr 22, 2016

csuguy said:
I don't claim any authority in of myself. I've studied a lot, but I don't demand people agree with me because of it - unlike Lon here who will always assert his authority over others and dismisses them by calling them 'kids' and the like (I'm 27 and will have my Masters in Computer Science next month).

Er, he didn't 'ask' for feedback about me. He asked for another to weigh in on you and your theology. You didn't wonder why that is? :think:

csuguy said:
Me and Lon here are always at odds because of this - I base my arguments upon the scriptures and logic, and demand the same in return. Lon bases his arguments upon his degrees.

Even if you yourself have degrees (I have a BA in Religious Studies) he will simply assert his degree (also a bachelors) is simply superior. If that isn't good enough he'll cite this theologian or that to attempt to further build up his appeal to authority.

Not really a problem to this point. I don't think you nearly as 'logical' as you seem to think you are, but as far as the rest, fine. Again, however, he asked about your view on Dispensational theology and/or about you. He didn't ask you about me. It doesn't need a lot more than what was said.

csuguy said:
IOf course, this is a logical fallacy. I refuse to acknowledge his supposed authority, and he refuses to rely upon the scriptures and logic as the basis for his arguments. As such, most of our discussions don't go very far.

See, I chalk this up to your inability to 'logic' well nor see correctly. You have a cultists myopia, delusion. This has been said by a lot more than myself. Find anyone but a cultist who has the same view you have of me. :nono: Won't find one. Why do you suppose? :think: It will all be evident BUT to a cultist/heretic/maverick. Something in your psyche doesn't work quite right. Dialogue in this case is good. He can see our conversation and pick up the bits and pieces he needs. If he had need to know a bit more about me, this confrontation provides that as well.

csuguy said:
II run into similar problems with AMR, and as a result we tend not to have many discussions with one another - though he does love to follow me around and post things about me. He apparently likes to document people on the forum.

Yowsa, no! He has a few positions all paid in theology and some of that for research, relates to dialogue. He did give some good information from one or two of your theology professors. Again, the same thing is said about you by others. What you are saying about me? Er, just cultists. It makes sense when you think about it. :think:

csuguy said:
At the end of the day - you should judge me for yourself, look at what I say verses the evidence.

I think he can, but asking someone else to weigh in is no poor request. He'll STILL judge afterwards, somewhat regarding both of us, as to how to take us and interact, but better? With an informed understanding. If he didn't want to know about me, it'll either be superfluous or added bonus.

csuguy said:
In some respects I am quite traditional - I am strongly rooted in the scriptures, and I also study the early church fathers. In other respects, many would consider me heretical - for example, though I was raised a Trinitarian, I am no longer one. It's simply not scriptural nor is it THE historic position of the church as they like to assert - it took hundreds of years to develop the Trinity, and then it was established through complex politics, bloodshed, and the like. Perhaps a topic for another thread.

Now you are telling on yourself. I think you 'think' you are traditional, but I've seen a few more issues where you go against the theological flow. Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons have 'traditional views.' It is when they go against orthodoxy that they aren't. I think cultists/heretics would like to be seen as orthodox, but that's weird. You can't go against orthodoxy (not O) and then turn around and want to be a part. It is a little too "accept me on my own terms." One hallmark of Christianity is our call to a body and accountability. A lone-Christian is an odd thing. It doesn't fit the Biblical model and it really would be about being ineffective.

This is a bit further than I think Sonnet wanted to go. All I 'think' he needed to know was 1) whether your view of Dispensationalism was well-informed and accurate (I don't believe it is), and 2) perhaps a bit about your perspective so he could place it in context. I'm not sure if anything else is helpful to him, but I do think it a bit beyond the necessary need. He had your opinion about Dispensationalism and was questioning whether it was accurate.

heir · Apr 22, 2016

Sonnet said:
Imdeed - strong words from Paul.

Could you explain this please?

They are behind pulpits all over the world and right here on TOL (2 Corinthians 11:13-15 KJV). They claim we play a part in saving ourselves when the truth of our salvation is Ephesians 2:4-9 KJV, Titus 3:5-7 KJV. They hang their hat on a gospel and doctrine that was preached in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, by Peter in Acts, and Hebrews through Revelation and it is not written TO any of us!

journey · Apr 22, 2016

csuguy said:
Yep - one Gospel. The Dispys want to insist on two+ gospels, but they are clearly in error and in contradiction with the scriptures.

You are clearly in error and are most of the time.

Galatians 2:7-9 KJV But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; 8. (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles 9. And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

Lon · Apr 22, 2016

Sonnet said:
Christ dying for a select few is something quite different. It is a different Gospel.

Just "Christ died for sinners." I don't believe He died for all sinners past, prior to His death burial, and resurrection. The good new is that Jesus Christ died to save sinners and then "all who call on the name of the Lord will be saved." Is it true to tell someone: "Christ died, specifically to 'save you!'" ? Even from your perspective, is that 100% true? I don't think it is necessary to say that. Simply "Christ died to save sinners like you and I," and "all who call on the name of the Lord will be saved."

heir · Apr 22, 2016

Nang said:
"Load of bull?" How unladylike of you . . .

Would you like to go back to talking about my eyebrows to show everyone how ladylike you are.

And you are very wrong.

No, of the two of us, you are the wrong divider (2 Timothy 2:15 KJV).

God wills all kinds of men & women be saved; but these verses that do not support universal atonement.

All means all. The ransom was paid for all (1 Timothy 2:4-6 KJV) and therefore the righteousness of God by the faith of Jesus Christ is unto all(Romans 3:21-22 KJV).

If God indeed willed that ALL men universally be saved, then ALL men would repent of their sins and convert to faith in Jesus Christ.

God wills that all men be saved not jump through your religious made up requirements on how to be.

There would be no warnings of judgment and hell left to proclaim, at all!

Ridiculous. Salvation is from the wrath to come (Romans5:9 KJV). Those who believe not, will not be saved from it (2 Thessalonians 2:10-12 KJV).

But rather, God has willed that all kinds of sinners, out of all nationalities and genders, be saved . . poor as well as rich, female as well as male, kings as well as commoners, slaves as well as free, etc. etc.

made up

Not a word of Holy Scripture interprets this global will of God to save men of all nationalities as being universal salvation of 100% of mankind.

No one has stated universal salvation here. Rather, world reconciliation (2 Corinthians 5:19-21 KJV) manifesting God's will of a due time when all men can be saved (1 Timothy 2:4-6 KJV, 2 Timothy 1:9-10 KJV, Titus 2:11 KJV)!

Universal atonement and/or Universal Salvation is biblicly untenable, and morphs into a false gospel message . . in all its various versions and formulas.

Again, the atonement was made by the cross. Salvation is available to all (Romans 3:21-22 KJV) by the gospel (1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV, Ephesians 3:6 KJV).

Getty up!

heir · Apr 22, 2016

csuguy said:
Dispys= Dispensationalists.They believe that God gave one Gospel through Christ and his disciples to the Jews. Paul, at some point (different versions of Dispensationalism say assert this occurred at different times) is supposed to have received through revelation a new Gospel, a Gospel for the gentiles.

There is, but one Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:13 KJV, Ephesians 3:6 KJV, Ephesians 4:4 KJV), but there are two bodies of believers in the so called NT.

One is a royal priesthood, an holy nation (1 Peter 2:9 KJV) made up of kings and priests /from the 12 Tribes that James wrote to (James 1:1 KJV) who will become that holy nation that Peter talked about, to whom Hebrews is written and to whom John wrote 1, 2, 3 John and Revelation (Revelation 1:6 KJV, Revelation 5:10 KJV). The doctrine of Peter, James and John has to do with Christ's second coming/ His earthly rule and reign. There are Gentiles wo inherit this kingdom (the kingdom of heaven)(Matthew 25:34 KJV), but they are there as a result of their blessing Israel during the Great Tribulation (Matthew 25:31-46 KJV).

None of the above describes the one Body, the church, which is His Body (Ephesians 1:22-23 KJV) that the saved are in today, nor our gospel (1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV), standing (Romans 4:25 KJV,1 Corinthians 6:11 KJV, Galatians 2:16 KJV, Ephesians 2:4-9 KJV, Colossians 2:10-13 KJV), position (Colossians 3:11 KJV) or inheritance (Ephesians 2:6 KJV, Philippians 3:20-21 KJV, Colossians 3:1-2 KJV).

Instead of following the religious system that has been confusing and mixing it up from the getgo why not 2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

heir · Apr 22, 2016

csuguy said:
They use this division to take anything they don't like - like being required to do the Lord's will to be saved - and they assert that was purely intended for the Jews under their Gospel. Meanwhile the Gentiles get the easy life where nothing is really required of them. Naturally all Dispys would themselves fall under the easy Gospel.

You are a deceitful worker (2 Corinthians 11:13-15 KJV). The only requirement for salvation today is to trust the Lord believing 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV, but that cannot be said of those in Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, preached to by Peter in Acts or Hebrews through Revelation! No, they had to: Repent, and believe the gospel (Mark 1:4 KJV) by baptism of repentance for the remission of sins (Mark 1:4 KJV, Mark 16:16 KJV, Acts 2:38 KJV), keep the commandments (John 14:15 KJV, Matthew 23:2-3 KJV, John 15:5-10 KJV), endure to the end to be saved (Matthew 10:22 KJV) looking forward that their sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord (which is at what many refer to as the second coming of the Lord (Acts 3:19-21 KJV).

Ben Masada · Apr 22, 2016

Did Christ Die for all Men?

No, he didn't. Not even for a single one he did. Jesus was a Jew and he would not contradict the
Prophets of the Most High who say that no one can die for the sins of another. That every one shall die for his own iniquity. (Jeremiah 31:30; Ezekiel 18:20) Jesus died as a result of the stupidity of his own disciples acclaiming him king of the Jews in Jerusalem. That's how the Romans punished acts of insurrection. (Luke 19:37-40) Not that Jesus was the one committing the insurrection but by taking the "king" the Romans were certain that they would be taking the cause. Hence, Jesus' verdict on the top of his cross: INRI.

heir · Apr 22, 2016

csuguy said:
It's really quite silly - they try to divide Christians from Israel, but Christians are part of Israel. It is through our connection with Israel, having been grafted on, that we share in their blessings and promises.

We are not Israel. We are not graffed into Israel and we do not share in their blessings and promises!

heir · Apr 22, 2016

csuguy said:
Furthermore, Dispensationalism makes God entirely unjust - showing partiality to the Gentiles, who have little to no requirements on them for their salvation, whereas everything is demanded from the Jews. This is sinful and unscriptural.

All who are saved today are saved by Paul's gospel (1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV, Ephesians 1:13-14 KJV).

heir · Apr 22, 2016

Ben Masada said:
Did Christ Die for all Men?

No, he didn't. Not even for a single one he did. Jesus was a Jew and he would not contradict the
Prophets of the Most High who say that no one can die for the sins of another.

Romans 4:25 KJV, 2 Corinthians 5:21 KJV

Why are you on a Christian board when you hate the very God who bought you?

Sonnet · Apr 22, 2016

Ben Masada said:
The Hellenist who wrote the gospel applied to Matthew was that day taken by the Pauline spirit to convert the Jews when he added one more motif to cause more and more trouble to the Jews: To blame the Jews for the too long a time, no matter how
long it would take for Jesus to return. It has been 2000 years and instead of blaming those who predicted Jesus' return, they chose to blame the Jews and keep on with the waiting.

I don't understand what you are saying here Ben.

Sonnet · Apr 22, 2016

Ask Mr. Religion said:
There is only one gospel, and every page of the Bible speaks to the Gospel, for each page tells the truth about God, about man, about Christ, and about salvation--these truths we call the Gospel.

So if you are looking for that gospel, and not some pithy statement that fits on a pledge card, or a few sentences open to all manner of interpretation, here then are Scripture's teachings about that which we call the gospel:

I agree that there is one Gospel, but I don't agree with your view that it cannot be represented in short form since Paul himself says:

Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance : that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them—yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me. Whether, then, it is I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed.

Did Christ die for all men?

New member

New member

&#9758;&#9758;&#9758;&#9758;Presbyterian (PCA) &#9

New member

New member

&#9758;&#9758;&#9758;&#9758;Presbyterian (PCA) &#9

New member

Well-known member

TOL Subscriber

New member

Well-known member

TOL Subscriber

TOL Subscriber

TOL Subscriber

New member

TOL Subscriber

TOL Subscriber

TOL Subscriber

New member

New member

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9