Did Jesus die for everyone?

[Guest shiloh357]

That's a new way of defining limited atonement. As I understood it from the Catholic stand point it meant the individual's sins were paid up to the point of baptism and then the individual has to atone by good work.

You're kidding right?

"Limited Atonement" is a Calvinistic doctrine, not a Catholic docrine. Limited Atonement is the belief that only the unconditionally elect, those who were chosen to be saved, are the people whom Jesus died for.

I am not completely familiar with Calvinistic doctrine. I am a little familiar with Catholic doctrine haveing been brought up Catholic. So I wasn't kidding. So you are using it as it pertains to Calvin.

More importantly, are you saying that no man is under the curse?

No, but Jesus has redeemed us from the curse.

So unbelievers are still under the curse?

LT

Unbelievers are still under the effects of curse so long as they choose continued separation from God.

[larryt]

When it says that:

Ro 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

Ro 8:7 Because the carnal mind [is] enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

How is it that anyone "diligently seeks" Him?

Paul is talking about unsaved mankind. Man left to his own vices doesn't seek after God. With no light, no intervention from God, we are by nature children of wrath, and will not seek Him.

Heb. 11:6 is what characterizes the person whose heart is softened to the light of the gospel being shined upon it. You work from the false assumption that even when presented the gospel, the unsaved are incapable of receiving it.

Nothing in Scriptures says an unbeliever is incapable of believing and understanding the message of the Gospel that presents him with the offer of forgiveness and salvation. Yet, according to you, this same unbeliever cannot believe is allegedly condemned by God for not believing the message So, to assert that God commands mankind to do that which cannot be done without His grace, while withholding the grace he needs and punishes him eternally for failing to obey, is to #1, bring yet another assault upon God's character and #2, to make a mockery of the Scriptures and His love for mankind.

Heb. 11:6 also characterizes the heart of the believer who seeks God for help at the throne of grace.

I agree that Paul was talking about unsaved mankind. I was looking for an explanation as to HOW one becomes capable of diligently seeking God.

LT

[Guest shiloh357]

I agree that Paul was talking about unsaved mankind. I was looking for an explanation as to HOW one becomes capable of diligently seeking God.

They dilegently seek Him when the Holy Spirit moves upon them. It is called "conviction."

[larryt]

What about the "whosoever won't's"? Those that don't take of the water of life. Are their sins paid for?

To be clear the sin death of humanity is paid. That means even the people who reject Christ. Everyone saved or not, their sin debt is paid. Sin is not paid for when you get saved. All of sin was paid for at the cross. Keep in mind that Jesus is not merely paying for sins of man. He is satisfying God's justice. There is one pentalty of sin that hangs over all humanity and Jesus paid that one penalty, which precludes a limited atonement. If it were a case of each man having his OWN personal penalty that needed to be paid, that would be different, but that is not how the Bible indicates it to be. There is ONE curse on pentalty that covers all of humanity at once, and Jesus paid that one penalty and redeemed us from that one curse.

Thank you for clarifying your position. That is one of the better explanations I have heard.

By the way was that a typo? the sin death of humanity is paid.

Rom. 5:18 if I can extrapolate form your answering my question would mean that ALL MEN now have justification of life because it came upon them.

So are all men justified?

No, all men are not justified. The point I was making was in the parallel that Paul drew. Just as the disobedience of Adam brought sin unto all men, the obedience of Christ (the last Adam) brought justification to all men. From an examination of other Scriptures, it is clear that Paul did not mean that all men were immediately justified, but that it is available to all men

.

shiloh, you and I can come to an understanding. I may not agree with your position but at least I understand it and may even consider it. I fail to see how cutting people down for not seeing things your way helps but to antagonize others.

LT

[larryt]

I agree that Paul was talking about unsaved mankind. I was looking for an explanation as to HOW one becomes capable of diligently seeking God.

They dilegently seek Him when the Holy Spirit moves upon them. It is called "conviction."

So does the Holy Spirit come upon all men, and when the Holy Spirit comes upon them do ALL diligently seek Him?

LT

[Guest shiloh357]

What about the "whosoever won't's"? Those that don't take of the water of life. Are their sins paid for?

To be clear the sin death of humanity is paid. That means even the people who reject Christ. Everyone saved or not, their sin debt is paid. Sin is not paid for when you get saved. All of sin was paid for at the cross. Keep in mind that Jesus is not merely paying for sins of man. He is satisfying God's justice. There is one pentalty of sin that hangs over all humanity and Jesus paid that one penalty, which precludes a limited atonement. If it were a case of each man having his OWN personal penalty that needed to be paid, that would be different, but that is not how the Bible indicates it to be. There is ONE curse on pentalty that covers all of humanity at once, and Jesus paid that one penalty and redeemed us from that one curse.

Thank you for clarifying your position. That is one of the better explanations I have heard.

By the way was that a typo? the sin death of humanity is paid.

Rom. 5:18 if I can extrapolate form your answering my question would mean that ALL MEN now have justification of life because it came upon them.

So are all men justified?

No, all men are not justified. The point I was making was in the parallel that Paul drew. Just as the disobedience of Adam brought sin unto all men, the obedience of Christ (the last Adam) brought justification to all men. From an examination of other Scriptures, it is clear that Paul did not mean that all men were immediately justified, but that it is available to all men

.

shiloh, you and I can come to an understanding. I may not agree with your position but at least I understand it and may even consider it. I fail to see how cutting people down for not seeing things your way helps but to antagonize others.

LT

Yes, it was a typo. Should be "sin debt."

I am not cutting you down. The fact remains that your position is not based on one direct statement of Scripture. You are penciling a doctrine into the Scriptures that is simply not there.

Your position slander's God's character and that is unacceptable.

[larryt]

What about the "whosoever won't's"? Those that don't take of the water of life. Are their sins paid for?

To be clear the sin death of humanity is paid. That means even the people who reject Christ. Everyone saved or not, their sin debt is paid. Sin is not paid for when you get saved. All of sin was paid for at the cross. Keep in mind that Jesus is not merely paying for sins of man. He is satisfying God's justice. There is one pentalty of sin that hangs over all humanity and Jesus paid that one penalty, which precludes a limited atonement. If it were a case of each man having his OWN personal penalty that needed to be paid, that would be different, but that is not how the Bible indicates it to be. There is ONE curse on pentalty that covers all of humanity at once, and Jesus paid that one penalty and redeemed us from that one curse.

Thank you for clarifying your position. That is one of the better explanations I have heard.

By the way was that a typo? the sin death of humanity is paid.

Rom. 5:18 if I can extrapolate form your answering my question would mean that ALL MEN now have justification of life because it came upon them.

So are all men justified?

No, all men are not justified. The point I was making was in the parallel that Paul drew. Just as the disobedience of Adam brought sin unto all men, the obedience of Christ (the last Adam) brought justification to all men. From an examination of other Scriptures, it is clear that Paul did not mean that all men were immediately justified, but that it is available to all men

.

shiloh, you and I can come to an understanding. I may not agree with your position but at least I understand it and may even consider it. I fail to see how cutting people down for not seeing things your way helps but to antagonize others.

LT

Yes, it was a typo. Should be "sin debt."

I am not cutting you down. The fact remains that your position is not based on one direct statement of Scripture. You are penciling a doctrine into the Scriptures that is simply not there.

Your position slander's God's character and that is unacceptable.

You say you are not cutting me down and yet you do over and over. From my point of view it is you who are slandering God, and yet I have not accused you of doing that.

Because you cannot grasp what it is that I understand, you will not be able to answer my position. I see the doctrine of election as clear as day. The utter depravity of man is just as clear.

One particular difference of opinion is on Rom. 9. Frankly I cannot fathom how it is you come to the conclusions you come to. To me the chapter is focused on the Sovereignty of God.

Your reasoning about free will flies in the face of God's Sovereignty as I see it. This by no means absolves man from his responsibility to repent. The natural man is unwilling to come to God unless God changes him first. You believe in the new birth. It is only mentioned once in the whole bible.(John 3) And yet the doctrine of election is pervasive.

I find myself in good company with the likes of Spurgeon, John Bunyon, John Newton, Pink, Gill, Whitfield, Edwards, and many many more. I am very familiar with their writings and they confirm what I find to be in the Word of God. Just you saying that they don't won't cut it. I really would like for you to point out where they say........

I can show many instances that they refer to the particular redemption directly, that election is God choosing according to His good pleasure and not based on ANYTHING in or about man.

I find your unwillingness to treat anyone that disagrees with you with respect very intolerable.

LT

[Guest shiloh357]

You say you are not cutting me down and yet you do over and over. From my point of view it is you who are slandering God, and yet I have not accused you of doing that.

I am not the one claiming that God is party to man's sin, and that the sinfulness of the world is as God intended. I am not the one who slanders God by claiming that He judges man for sin that fully intended for man to commit and gives him no ability to accept the gospel, while judging for the rejection of said gospel. Your position is the one that slanders God's character. There is NO point at which my position implies that God compromises His holiness, and THAT is why you cannot bring a similar charge against me.

Because you cannot grasp what it is that I understand, you will not be able to answer my position. I see the doctrine of election as clear as day. The utter depravity of man is just as clear.

I believe in election and depravity as well, but you skew those terms and force them to fit a doctrine they do not promote. The Bible does not claim that man's depravity renders him incapable of receiving the gospel. Election has nothing to with who is or is not saved. You are confusing the pure, biblical doctrine of election with the Calvinistic doctrine of "unconditional election" which teaches that God has chosen, for reasons known only to Him, who will or will not be saved.

One particular difference of opinion is on Rom. 9. Frankly I cannot fathom how it is you come to the conclusions you come to. To me the chapter is focused on the Sovereignty of God.

I said it was focused on the sovereignty of God as well. Where you are mistaken is that it has nothing to do with God choosing who will or will be saved. I teach correctly that Romans 9 pertains to God's sovereignty with regard how he uses people to show forth either His power or His mercy.

Your reasoning about free will flies in the face of God's Sovereignty as I see it. This by no means absolves man from his responsibility to repent.

No, your view of God's sovereignty flies in the face of biblical doctrine and the true Christian faith. God's sovereignty does not make free will a mutually exclusive concept. It is God's sovereign will that decrees man be given a choice to accept or reject the gospel.

The natural man is unwilling to come to God unless God changes him first.

The Bible does not say that. God changes a person AFTER he receives Christ. It is when a man is in Christ that he becomes a new creation.

You believe in the new birth. It is only mentioned once in the whole bible.(John 3) And yet the doctrine of election is pervasive.

I believe in both the new birth and election.

I find myself in good company with the likes of Spurgeon, John Bunyon, John Newton, Pink, Gill, Whitfield, Edwards, and many many more. I am very familiar with their writings and they confirm what I find to be in the Word of God.

They would be repulsed to know that you have twisted their writings to attribute the sinfulness of our world to God's design. YOU do not teach what they teach. I have their writings as well, and I have never come away from their writings thinking they believed any of the stuff I have seen you and kross trying to pan off on us.

Just you saying that they don't won't cut it. I really would like for you to point out where they say........

I am not rejecting what they teach. I reject your perversion of classical Calvinism.

I find your unwillingness to treat anyone that disagrees with you with respect very intolerable.

I find your slander of God's character intolerable. It has nothing to do with disagreeing with me.

[larryt]

You say you are not cutting me down and yet you do over and over. From my point of view it is you who are slandering God, and yet I have not accused you of doing that.

I am not the one claiming that God is party to man's sin, and that the sinfulness of the world is as God intended. I am not the one who slanders God by claiming that He judges man for sin that fully intended for man to commit and gives him no ability to accept the gospel, while judging for the rejection of said gospel. Your position is the one that slanders God's character. There is NO point at which my position implies that God compromises His holiness, and THAT is why you cannot bring a similar charge against me.

I think you have me confused with someone else. I have never said that God is a party to man's sin, nor do I believe it. And all the rest of your accusations are based on your misconceptions on what it is that I do believe. You hear what you want to hear and I think you need to just stay away from my posts. I know it is difficult to convey ideas with just the written word, and I know that I am not as gifted in that area as others. You would do well to try to hear what some people are really saying instead of being an inquisitor. I have tried to be civil.

LT

[Guest shiloh357]

I think you have me confused with someone else. I have never said that God is a party to man's sin, nor do I believe it.

No, I don't have you confused with anyone else, and I am not the only who has come away from your writings feeling the same way. You stated that God designed everything including the fall of man, which ultimately makes God party man's sin. You don't want to frame it that way, but that is the only conclusion that can be drawn from your words. You have stood with kross in the belief that nothing occurs outside the Will of God. You even tried to concoct a scenario where the rape and murder of an innocent girl could be in the Will of God. Frankly, you are not really honest about what you believe.

And all the rest of your accusations are based on your misconceptions on what it is that I do believe.

No, they are based on what you have posted.

I know it is difficult to convey ideas with just the written word, and I know that I am not as gifted in that area as others. You would do well to try to hear what some people are really saying instead of being an inquisitor.

It's not difficult at all to convey ideas with the written word, when it is the truth. It is when you are trying to make an unbiblical doctrine fit the Scriptures like a square peg in a round hole, that things suddenly become difficult. You are trying to mold the Bible around what you believe. I simply work off of what the Bible says as opposed to your approach. Neither am I being an inquisitor. I simply know the truth. When you know the truth, there is no obligation to entertain other ideas. You would not treat the symptoms of a cold if you have cure. Likewise, you don't need to entertain opinions when you have the truth.