Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community forums. You'll first need to register in order to join our community. Create or respond to threads on your favorite topics and subjects. Registration takes less than a minute, it's simple, fast, and free! Enjoy the fellowship! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Christian Fellowship Community Forums

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
Solas

A TEASER

Recommended Posts

How is it that many of the Reformed will agree and even say, 'Christ died for sinners', but when confronted with the fact that ALL have sinned and are therefore sinners, they will back pedal and not say Christ died for all?

IOW, if you say 'He died for sinners' it would follow He died for all, since all have sinned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The elect consist of more than one person, therefore to say that "Christ died for sinners" is true.

  • Like 1
  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Solas said:

How is it that many of the Reformed will agree and even say, 'Christ died for sinners', but when confronted with the fact that ALL have sinned and are therefore sinners, they will back pedal and not say Christ died for all?

IOW, if you say 'He died for sinners' it would follow He died for all, since all have sinned.

Contextually, He died for the elect. John 10:11, John 10:15, & Ephesians 5:25 show this to be true.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, Solas said:

How is it that many of the Reformed will agree and even say, 'Christ died for sinners', but when confronted with the fact that ALL have sinned and are therefore sinners, they will back pedal and not say Christ died for all?

IOW, if you say 'He died for sinners' it would follow He died for all, since all have sinned.

How is it that the non-reformed will not embrace the inescapable conclusion of their own argument.

 

If Christ died for all sinners (without exception), then all sinners (without exception) are saved.

Does the blood of Christ not cleanse the debt of sin?

 

Suddenly, it is the non-reformed who start to back pedal.

Edited by atpollard
  • Like 1
  • ouch 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Faber said:

The elect consist of more than one person, therefore to say that "Christ died for sinners" is true.

It definitely is true, but surely the Greek has a word for 'some' as in 'Jesus died for some sinners', which I have not read in Scripture without exalting logic to the level of God's revelation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, atpollard said:

If Christ died for all sinners (without exception), then all sinners (without exception) are saved.

Does the blood of Christ not cleanse the debt of sin?

The benefit of that death comes only through the application of His blood by faith. Just as in the Passover in Exodus, anyone Hebrew or (theoretically) Egyptian applying the blood over the doorpost would have the death angel pass over. Faith has always been required since Cain and Abel.

Perhaps my Passover/Egyptian example was shaky, but it would stand today according to...

And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. (Act 15:8-9)

 

Ok, I attempted to answer your question, could you attempt to answer mine?

Edited by Solas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff

The simplistic question i have about this topic is :
If Christ died for all  how do those who believe this explain the failure of His Atoning Blood . Unless it is believed all are 'saved' . 

Are man's choices, which we understand from Genesis to be against God, more powerful then His Blood? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Becky said:

The simplistic question i have about this topic is :
If Christ died for all  how do those who believe this explain the failure of His Atoning Blood . Unless it is believed all are 'saved' . 

Are man's choices, which we understand from Genesis to be against God, more powerful then His Blood? 

Becky, I'm not sure if I am grasping your question correctly, but I would say this has to do with irresistible grace. Yes God is irresistible when He deals with us directly, but in the area of His dealings with us He uses means, such as His written/spoken Word, and  it is the means man is able to resist in his choices. This is why I asked in the other thread, 'yes God draws, convicts, enlightens etc., but who makes the final choice, us or God?

  So, although Christ died for all, it is only those who are obedient to the draw, conviction, enlightening etc. by faith, that benefit from the shed Blood. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
8 minutes ago, Solas said:

Becky, I'm not sure if I am grasping your question correctly, but I would say this has to do with irresistible grace. Yes God is irresistible when He deals with us directly, but in the area of His dealings with us He uses means, such as His written/spoken Word, and  it is the means man is able to resist in his choices. This is why I asked in the other thread, 'yes God draws, convicts, enlightens etc., but who makes the final choice, us or God?

  So, although Christ died for all, it is only those who are obedient to the draw, conviction, enlightening etc. by faith, that benefit from the shed Blood. 

So our salvation is dependent on our obedience? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Becky said:

So our salvation is dependent on our obedience? 

In obedience to the Gospel meaning we acknowledge ourselves as lawbreakers and acknowledge Christ's perfect obedience, as well as His death, burial and resurrection 1Cor 15:1-4. 

In short, we are saved by Jesus Christ and His Work. Faith merely receives it as one's own. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Solas said:

Ok, I attempted to answer your question, could you attempt to answer mine?

Sure.

 

15 hours ago, Solas said:

How is it that many of the Reformed will agree and even say, 'Christ died for sinners', but when confronted with the fact that ALL have sinned and are therefore sinners, they will back pedal and not say Christ died for all?

IOW, if you say 'He died for sinners' it would follow He died for all, since all have sinned.

All who Christ died for are sinners.

It is incorrect to then assume that Christ died for all sinners.

 

[“If my poodle is brown, it would follow that all dogs are brown, since my poodle is a dog.”]

(poodle = saved; brown = Christ died for; dogs = sinners)

 

The heart of the issue is does the shed blood of Christ actually ACOMPLISH anything, or does it only make salvation POSSIBLE for those who contribute something else?

All non-universalists see some limitation to the blood of Christ.

  • Reformed see the blood as actually removing sin and being limited in who it was shed for ... only those sins which were actually forgiven.
  • Non-reformed see the blood applied to all (every person without exception) and limited in its effective ability to actually remove the punishment of sin by something ... typically something the person must do or say.

There is my answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, atpollard said:

The heart of the issue is does the shed blood of Christ actually ACOMPLISH anything, or does it only make salvation POSSIBLE for those who contribute something else?

It accomplishes an objective substitutionary reconciliation with the Father. i.e. the Father is satisfied, now...

 

And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
(2Co 5:18-21)
 

Now, a person accomplishes a subjective (personal) reconciliation with God through the work of the Cross.and thereby receiving the benefits of that objective reconciliation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff

Wernt the lambs bulls etc of the OT substitutionary of Christ the real thing? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Solas said:

It accomplishes an objective substitutionary reconciliation with the Father. i.e. the Father is satisfied, now...

 

22 minutes ago, Solas said:

Now, a person accomplishes a subjective (personal) reconciliation with God through the work of the Cross.and thereby receiving the benefits of that objective reconciliation

Like I said, for non-Reformed the “objective reconciliation” saves nobody, it simply buys everyone (without exception) an opportunity to work out a personal “subjective reconciliation” ... that is a limitation on the ability of the blood of Christ to actually save anyone and everyone.

 

For we Reformed, God the Father foreknew (foreloved) His sheep and God drew them to the Son and Jesus knows His sheep and laid down His life for His sheep and the blood of Christ actually and literally and all by itself fully washed away all of the sins from His sheep, the Bride of Christ, the Children of God, those foreknown before the foundation of the world.

  • Like 1
  • ouch 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator

We usually say that when witnessing to not make it complicated for non Christians. Christ did die for sinners, particular sinners.

  • Like 2
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Becky said:

Wernt the lambs bulls etc of the OT substitutionary of Christ the real thing? 

Hebrews 10:4 NKJV
[4] For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, atpollard said:

 

Like I said, for non-Reformed the “objective reconciliation” saves nobody, it simply buys everyone (without exception) an opportunity to work out a personal “subjective reconciliation” ... that is a limitation on the ability of the blood of Christ to actually save anyone and everyone.

 

For we Reformed, God the Father foreknew (foreloved) His sheep and God drew them to the Son and Jesus knows His sheep and laid down His life for His sheep and the blood of Christ actually and literally and all by itself fully washed away all of the sins from His sheep, the Bride of Christ, the Children of God, those foreknown before the foundation of the world.

God gives the Blood of His Son (objective) (God Himself provides the Sacrifice), and as Abraham we by faith receive His Substitute (subjective)....

 

Genesis 22:8,13 NKJV
[8] And Abraham said, "My son, God will provide for Himself the lamb for a burnt offering." So the two of them went together.

[13] Then Abraham lifted his eyes and looked, and there behind him was a ram caught in a thicket by its horns. So Abraham went and took the ram, and offered it up for a burnt offering instead of his son.

 

As I've already mentioned, I am quite aware of the basics of Reformed theology

 

Edited by Solas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
22 hours ago, Solas said:

How is it that many of the Reformed will agree and even say, 'Christ died for sinners', but when confronted with the fact that ALL have sinned and are therefore sinners, they will back pedal and not say Christ died for all?

IOW, if you say 'He died for sinners' it would follow He died for all, since all have sinned.

Christ did not die for everyone . He died for His  elect and chosen people and ordained them to life eternal before the foundation of the world. Eph.1:4  The words through out the old and new testament are just to obvious to pass up. Why not everyone ? Because the objects of God's love are His own chosen people reserved for heaven and life eternal. God could have chosen to destroy all of humanity as a result of man's sin .  Why are the non-elect not chosen for heaven and life eternal and will remain in their  sins ? Because the law of God demands retribution , He has reserved the non-elect to remain in their sins and suffer eternal punishment for them . On the one hand we have God's grace displayed in His chosen ones . And on the other hand we have His Justice displayed on all those whom He has chosen to let remain in their sins.

Edited by Matthew Duvall
spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Solas said:

God gives the Blood of His Son (objective) (God Himself provides the Sacrifice), and as Abraham we by faith receive His Substitute (subjective)....

 

Genesis 22:8,13 NKJV
[8] And Abraham said, "My son, God will provide for Himself the lamb for a burnt offering." So the two of them went together.

[13] Then Abraham lifted his eyes and looked, and there behind him was a ram caught in a thicket by its horns. So Abraham went and took the ram, and offered it up for a burnt offering instead of his son.

 

As I've already mentioned, I am quite aware of the basics of Reformed theology

 

Are you familiar with Jacob and Esau ? Read the entire chapter of Romans 9 .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Matthew Duvall said:

Christ did not die for everyone . He died for His  elect and chosen people and ordained them to life eternal before the foundation of the world. Eph.1:4  The words through out the old and new testament are just to obvious to pass up. Why not everyone ? Because the objects of God's love are His own chosen people reserved for heaven and life eternal. God could have chosen to destroy all of humanity as a result of man's sin .  Why are the non-elect not chosen for heaven and life eternal and will remain in their  sins ? Because the law of God demands retribution , He has reserved the non-elect to remain in their sins and suffer eternal punishment for them . On the one hand we have God's grace displayed in His chosen ones . And on the other hand we have His Justice displayed on all those whom He has chosen to let remain in their sins.

If He died only for the elect, how do you know He died for you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Matthew Duvall said:

Are you familiar with Jacob and Esau ? Read the entire chapter of Romans 9 .

Rather read all three chapters (9-11).

Paul is laying out the case, in God's sovereign purposes, He has not forsaken His people Israel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff

Isa_19:25  Whom the LORD of hosts shall bless, saying, Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel mine inheritance. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff

Dilemma_grande.jpg.5f6de8eceb6d186498b4bf8d90c538d4.jpg

 

  • Like 2
  • ouch 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Solas said:

The benefit of that death comes only through the application of His blood by faith. Just as in the Passover in Exodus, anyone Hebrew or (theoretically) Egyptian applying the blood over the doorpost would have the death angel pass over. Faith has always been required since Cain and Abel.

Perhaps my Passover/Egyptian example was shaky, but it would stand today according to...

And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. (Act 15:8-9)

 

Ok, I attempted to answer your question, could you attempt to answer mine?

If I may ask a question. You said that Christ died for all sins of all men. Is unbelief in the power of His blood a sin? 

 

~ If it is a sin, then didn't Christ's blood cover this sin as well? So then if it is a sin, then it was covered, and all men will be in heaven

~ If it is not a sin, then there is not penalty for not believing, and since every other sin was covered, then all men will be in heaven. 

 

 

37 minutes ago, William said:

Dilemma_grande.jpg.5f6de8eceb6d186498b4bf8d90c538d4.jpg

 

Duuuuude! Noice! We twined! 

  • Toast 1
  • Wow 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Solas said:

If He died only for the elect, how do you know He died for you?

How do you know you used your free will wisely and were saved by using it? How do you know you freely chose the right thing?

 

We can play this game all day.

 

I know I am an elect because if He had not chosen me, under no circumstance would I have chosen Him. When I sin, it grieves me that I have sinned against a thrice holy God, and repent of said sins. That’s how I know I am an elect of God.

  • Like 2
  • Toast 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...