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

[CadyandZoe]

Can you cite scriptures where the Father made such promise and with those conditions?

I'll try, but you know, I have been quoting these scriptures all along.

As you know, the idea of making an offering of appeasement comes from the Hebrew Bible wherein Moses instructed the people to bring the appropriate animals or food to the temple to make an appropriate sacrifice. It would take too long to explain each one, and as I am not prepared to do so at this time, suffice to say that the Father was training his people to anticipate a permanent redemption of Israel. Romans 3:21

In his letter to the Hebrews, Paul points out that the day of atonement was temporary and only a shadow of what was to come. He points out that the high priest not only gave offerings for his people, he was required to make an offering for himself. And the high priest could not bring the offering to perfection (completion) because the high priest was required to make the offering each year, and eventually the high priest died. You raised this passage in one of your other posts: Hebrews 9.

Hebrews 9 describes the role of Jesus, our high priest, who makes intercession for us in the heavenly temple. Hebrews 9:11
Rather than offering the blood of goats etc. he offers his own blood Hebrews 9:12
And, as it says, he entered "once for all, having obtained eternal redemption." Hebrews 9:12
The offering was made to God, just as Jesus Christ appeared before God to make an appeal on our behalf. Hebrews 9:24

Although Paul wrote to the Hebrews and explained the gospel using terms the would understand, he was the apostle to the Gentiles. When he wrote to Gentiles he used terms that Gentiles would understand. He spoke about the cross in terms the propitiatory offering, whereby the penitent is answering to the question, "what will the god accept in order to restore friendly relations, so that we might gain his favor?" While Hebrew God is not just another god among the pantheon of gods, Paul deemed the analogy to be helpful to our understanding.

According to Paul, God flipped the situation on its head. God, rather than the penitent makes the overture himself. Rather than leaving it to the Gentiles to speculate about what God might want, God revealed to the world the terms that would make for peace between God and man. The underlying assumption among the polytheists is that the gods, like men, only help and grant favors to friends. And so, if one wants the god to grant him favors, he must maintain or restore friendly relations with the god. Paul indicates, however, that God provided the basis for reconciliation while we were still his enemies. Romans 5:10.

The purpose of the cross, then is to provide the means of reconciliation, Romans 5:10-11, 2 Corinthians 5:18-20
Through the act of propitiation: Romans 3:25, Hebrews 2:17, 1 John 2:2, 1 John 4:10
The cross was a public display of God's righteousness: Romans 3:25, while the sins were being overlooked. Therefore, the cross was not punishment or payment for our sins. The sins were passed over, not satisfied.

How does your post answer the question how Jesus is “the propitiation for our sins”?

The underlying concept associated with propitiation is reconciliation, because the common assumption among polytheists is that the god will only grant favors to his or her friends. Thus, if one wants favors from the gods, e.g. lots of crops, lots of kids, a good wife, and a long life, one must maintain or restore friendly relations with God.

1 John 4:10
In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

What does he mean "for our sins"? In light of the passages we have seen thus far, I believe John means to say something like "He sent his son, not only to be the offering himself, but he is the only one qualified to make intercession, because on account of our sins, we are incapable of making the offering ourselves."

An offer FOR all mankind? Can you please elaborate on that?

As we learned from Hebrews 9:15, those who have been called will receive the promise of eternal life. But also, according to the parable of the sower, the call goes out to the entire world, like a farmer broadcasting seed. If the cross was intended to be effectual for the elect only, then Jesus only need die in private, which is a logical possibility. Jesus, however, died publicly and out in the open for all to see. This is consistent with an open invitation made available to the entire world. Those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance, but only because reconciliation is not possible unless both parties agree to the terms of reconciliation.

I agree. That is why, we should be looking at what Christ had accomplished at the cross.

This we have done, I think.

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
<<<Punishment is any pain, suffering, or loss inflicted on a person because of a crime or offence. >>>

Yes. Punishment is a penalty inflicted on an offender. It may be in various forms which are a disadvantage, suffering, pain, or loss that serves as retribution.

The punishment for sin is death. And “death” here, I do not refer to what the world define it to mean. I refer to it as to what the scriptures says it is. That is another deep and important subject to talk about, as I see it as would have the Christian appreciate what Jesus Christ had to suffer for the children of God.

<<<Ransom, on the other hand, is the money or price paid for the redemption of a prisoner, or for goods captured by an enemy.>>>

Yes. Ransom is a payment of a price to free someone from captivity or from punishment. It is a way for setting free someone or something.

Scriptures tells us that Christ gave His life a ransom for many (Mk.10:45). Note, for many, not for all of humanity. A ransom for what? In Heb.19:15 for one, it tells us, concerning those called (note: not all of humanity), that ransom payment was for the transgressions under the first covenant. To set them free from what then? From the penalty of sin. Not only for that, but also from guilt. And the ransom payment is? Death.

<<<Punishment is an act of justice;>>>

Yes. But also could be an act of vengeance, of retribution, of wrath.

<<<ransom is an act of mercy.>>>

It may and may be not. But for sure, Ransom is an act of setting free from a bad position to a good one. And such was of Christ’s death. It is an act of love and also of mercy.

With regard to Mark 10:45, I think you may be confusing effect with purpose. Jesus' death on the cross was the basis of our reconciliation, but not all men wish to be reconciled to God on that basis. Thus, the effect of his death was a ransom for many, but the purpose of the cross was to offer his hand to all of mankind, making reconciliation available to anyone who wanted it, i.e. for the whole world.

I do not think I am confusing effect with purpose regarding Mk.10:45. The effect and purpose points to each other. The verse says Christ came to give His life a ransom for many. The purpose of His coming is to give His life. And for what purpose is it that He gives His life? As a ransom for many. And what was the effect of His death then, but as ransom, a payment for their sins, which sets them free from their sins, from the guilt and penalty thereof.

Now, with regards reconciliation, that is yet another purpose of His dying or His death. Not by or as a ransom, but as an atoning sacrifice, as a propitiation, an appeasement, not only for many, but for the whole world.

Jesus Christ’s death had accomplished both purposes, that is, as a ransom and as a propitiation. The former benefits the many, and the latter benefits the whole world. Both accomplished through and at the death of Christ. They are done.

<<<the purpose of the cross was to offer his hand to all of mankind, making reconciliation available to anyone who wanted it, i.e. for the whole world.>>>

As per my discussion above, there is no such offer. What is there is that God is appeased by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. As far as God is concerned then, He had reconciled Himself to the world, on account of Jesus Christ. Now, that is not to say that the whole world had reconciled themselves to God.

BTW I affirm unconditional election. Nonetheless, the narrative picture of evangelistic efforts found in the New Testament argue against a targeted approach to evangelism. While we both agree with Paul that those who are called will receive the promise, the actual call goes out to the entire world. Jesus pictured this as a farmer broadcasting seed onto a field. The act of broadcasting is a much different process than placing individual seeds into a planting bed, carefully placing one seed at a time into the soil. The offer of reconciliation is broadcast throughout the world.

Unconditional election? What do you mean by that? Please clarify or explain.

With regards the rest of what you say there, about reconciliation, I think I already addressed that in the other segment above.

And if you are referring to the parable of the sower,I don’t see the parable as being about matter of reconciliation.

But I want to reiterate my point earlier. The doctrine of Penal substitution can not be defended. We must never confuse justice with mercy; punishment with ransom. The two are entirely different concepts.

<<<The doctrine of Penal substitution can not be defended.>>>

I really do not know exactly what that doctrine is. But if you are referring to the matter that Jesus took upon Himself or laid upon Himself the sins of those chosen by God to given to the Son to raise up at the last day unto eternal life, and paid the price for the penalty of their sins, scriptures do teach that. I already discussed that in the segments above.

<<<We must never confuse justice with mercy; punishment with ransom. The two are entirely different concepts.>>>

Yes we must not.

Tong
R4345

 

[CadyandZoe]

Do we have an issue about that? I am not aware of that when you asked the questions. For we are not discussing about morality, but about the cross.

Well, apparently I inadvertently assumed you held certain doctrines, which you don't hold? For that I am truly sorry and beg your forgiveness.

So then, let me ask you this. On what basis do you believe that the cross is only effectual for the elect? or the called? Are we simply taking that on faith or is there a logic to it?

 

[Truman]

Another popular Myth in the religious world today, is the Jesus Christ died or gave His Life for everyone in the world without exception, but the problem with that, is there is not one shred of scripture evidence that states that.

The scripture however does say that He died for His Sheep or His Church as per Jn 10:11,15

11I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.

15As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.

Eph 5:25

25Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

His People Isa 53:8

8He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. cp Matt 1:21

Now, are all without exception His Sheep ? No

Are all without exception His Church ? No

Are all without exception His People ? No

For surely the seed of the serpent Gen 3:15 cannot be of His Sheep, His Church, or His People.

So why does the religous world proclaim that Jesus Christ died for all men without exception, when they have no scripture proof ? Because it is a Myth.

This is one of the more stupid concepts I've heard on this forum.

 

[CadyandZoe]

<<<Jesus wasn't rescuing innocent life.>>>

And isn’t that amazing? He gave His life for the ungodly, sinners. And for what?

Tong
R4305

I think you know the answer but in order to speak to the topic issue, we need to come to terms with the Bible. That is, we need to understand how all these concepts, reconciliation, peace, forgiveness, justification, salvation, etc. all relate to each other. I think there is a logic to it, if we bear in mind that reconciliation isn't possible unless both parties agree to the terms that make for peace between them. As you say, the cross is significant for more than one reason. I can think of three or four things right off the bat. But since an overture of reconciliation is not a unilateral situation, the fact that a limited number of human beings make peace with God through the cross, doesn't contract the idea that the overture of reconciliation was made to the entire world. The actualization of peace not only depends on the cross, it also depends on the conciliation of any particular individual who agrees to the meaning of the cross and its implications for his or her own existence.

 

[MatthewG]

So did Christ die for all people?

The Bible suggest it is so.

 

[CadyandZoe]

What I meant to say, when I said that forgiveness “is the NOT taking offense of the wrong doing or of the sins done against God any longer; the taking away of the offense, the sin.”, is to give up or to cease to feel resentment against the offender.

<<<is the purpose of the cross to bring absolution or conciliation?>>>

<<<the question is, "what will it take to assuage the enmity between God and man?">>>

There is much purpose of the cross. And that is what we are looking at. And I think the better question is not that, but what Christ accomplished by His death.

As I said, what Christ accomplished by His death points us to the purpose/s of the cross. We read of scriptures that speaks of Christ’s death as a propitiation and also a ransom/redemption. We also read of scriptures that speaks of the blood of Christ as cleanses us from all sin, washed us from our sins. We also read of Christ as was offered to bear the sins of many. We also have scriptures that speaks of Christ as have offered a sacrifice for sins. And so on. The death of Christ certainly accomplished a lot of things, that it could be seen in a lot of different view points.

Tong
R4303

I agree, but let's dig a bit deeper into the letter to the Hebrews a bit. Consider this verse from Hebrews 9

28 so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.

Doesn't this imply or suggest two different activities?
1. bear the sins of many
2. appear a second time for salvation

What do you make of that?

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
Can you cite scriptures where the Father made such promise and with those conditions?

I'll try, but you know, I have been quoting these scriptures all along.

As you know, the idea of making an offering of appeasement comes from the Hebrew Bible wherein Moses instructed the people to bring the appropriate animals or food to the temple to make an appropriate sacrifice. It would take too long to explain each one, and as I am not prepared to do so at this time, suffice to say that the Father was training his people to anticipate a permanent redemption of Israel. Romans 3:21

In his letter to the Hebrews, Paul points out that the day of atonement was temporary and only a shadow of what was to come. He points out that the high priest not only gave offerings for his people, he was required to make an offering for himself. And the high priest could not bring the offering to perfection (completion) because the high priest was required to make the offering each year, and eventually the high priest died. You raised this passage in one of your other posts: Hebrews 9.

Hebrews 9 describes the role of Jesus, our high priest, who makes intercession for us in the heavenly temple. Hebrews 9:11
Rather than offering the blood of goats etc. he offers his own blood Hebrews 9:12
And, as it says, he entered "once for all, having obtained eternal redemption." Hebrews 9:12
The offering was made to God, just as Jesus Christ appeared before God to make an appeal on our behalf. Hebrews 9:24

Although Paul wrote to the Hebrews and explained the gospel using terms the would understand, he was the apostle to the Gentiles. When he wrote to Gentiles he used terms that Gentiles would understand. He spoke about the cross in terms the propitiatory offering, whereby the penitent is answering to the question, "what will the god accept in order to restore friendly relations, so that we might gain his favor?" While Hebrew God is not just another god among the pantheon of gods, Paul deemed the analogy to be helpful to our understanding.

According to Paul, God flipped the situation on its head. God, rather than the penitent makes the overture himself. Rather than leaving it to the Gentiles to speculate about what God might want, God revealed to the world the terms that would make for peace between God and man. The underlying assumption among the polytheists is that the gods, like men, only help and grant favors to friends. And so, if one wants the god to grant him favors, he must maintain or restore friendly relations with the god. Paul indicates, however, that God provided the basis for reconciliation while we were still his enemies. Romans 5:10.

The purpose of the cross, then is to provide the means of reconciliation, Romans 5:10-11, 2 Corinthians 5:18-20
Through the act of propitiation: Romans 3:25, Hebrews 2:17, 1 John 2:2, 1 John 4:10
The cross was a public display of God's righteousness: Romans 3:25, while the sins were being overlooked. Therefore, the cross was not punishment or payment for our sins. The sins were passed over, not satisfied.

I’m sorry, but I can’t find anything in Hebrews 9 where it speaks about what you say, that is, “the Father promises to accept the offering provided that Jesus' followers have the proper inwardness -- contrition, penitence, honesty, faith, hope, love and etc.”

Perhaps you can cite other scriptures, if any, where the Father made such promise and with those conditions.

Tong
R4346

 

[CadyandZoe]

So did Christ die for all people?

The Bible suggest it is so.

It depends on what you mean. Did Jesus die for the Jewish people only? No, Jesus died for "a great multitude which no one could count, from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues . . ." Revelation 7:9

Did Jesus die instead of people? No, we all die. Hebrews 9:27

Is the offer of salvation open to all? Romans 10:13, Revelation 22:17

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
How does your post answer the question how Jesus is “the propitiation for our sins”?

The underlying concept associated with propitiation is reconciliation, because the common assumption among polytheists is that the god will only grant favors to his or her friends. Thus, if one wants favors from the gods, e.g. lots of crops, lots of kids, a good wife, and a long life, one must maintain or restore friendly relations with God.

1 John 4:10
In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

What does he mean "for our sins"? In light of the passages we have seen thus far, I believe John means to say something like "He sent his son, not only to be the offering himself, but he is the only one qualified to make intercession, because on account of our sins, we are incapable of making the offering ourselves."

My question is HOW Jesus is “the propitiation for our sins”.

I am sorry, I just could not seem to find the answer as to the HOW.

As to my question “To whom did Jesus offered his life as a propitiation - appeasement?”

I think I get your answer here in your post. That Jesus offered, His life as a propitiation for our sins, to God. Did I get you right on this?

Tong
R4347

 

[MatthewG]

Thank you for the scripture friend.

I would believe His blood shed on the cross was the payment for all sin once and for all: that those who believe gain access to the Father and are given the spirit from God into their hearts and God works writes his laws on the hearts and minds of people by the holy spirit/ spirit of Christ.

 

[MatthewG]

Did you know @tong that the atonement was a made up word by I believe Tyndell when translating the Bible he had to think of how Gods anger was appeased and also sin was justified by the blood Christ and ; at that moment became atonement.

 

[Tong2020]

An offer FOR all mankind? Can you please elaborate on that?

As we learned from Hebrews 9:15, those who have been called will receive the promise of eternal life. But also, according to the parable of the sower, the call goes out to the entire world, like a farmer broadcasting seed. If the cross was intended to be effectual for the elect only, then Jesus only need die in private, which is a logical possibility. Jesus, however, died publicly and out in the open for all to see. This is consistent with an open invitation made available to the entire world. Those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance, but only because reconciliation is not possible unless both parties agree to the terms of reconciliation.

As I said in my other post, the parable of the sower is not about matter of reconciliation nor matter of offer to mankind.

<<<If the cross was intended to be effectual for the elect only, then Jesus only need die in private, which is a logical possibility.>>>

The death of Christ benefits all mankind.

I agree. That is why, we should be looking at what Christ had accomplished at the cross.

This we have done, I think.

If we did, can you kindly list what Christ had accomplished at the cross? Thanks.

Tong
R4348

 

[Tong2020]

Well, apparently I inadvertently assumed you held certain doctrines, which you don't hold? For that I am truly sorry and beg your forgiveness.

So then, let me ask you this. On what basis do you believe that the cross is only effectual for the elect? or the called? Are we simply taking that on faith or is there a logic to it?

<<<On what basis do you believe that the cross is only effectual for the elect? or the called?>>>

As with regards eternal salvation or salvation unto eternal life, Christ’s death benefits only His sheep; His church; “the many” (not all men):

Mark 10:45 For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”

John 10:14 I am the good shepherd; and I know My sheep, and am known by My own. 15 As the Father knows Me, even so I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep.

Acts 20:28 Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.

<<<Are we simply taking that on faith or is there a logic to it?>>>

Of course by faith in God and His word, even in His scriptures.

Tong
R4349

 

[CadyandZoe]

I’m sorry, but I can’t find anything in Hebrews 9 where it speaks about what you say, that is, “the Father promises to accept the offering provided that Jesus' followers have the proper inwardness -- contrition, penitence, honesty, faith, hope, love and etc.”

Perhaps you can cite other scriptures, if any, where the Father made such promise and with those conditions.

Tong
R4346

What do you want? You want me to cite a passage where the Father says this explicitly? I don't think you are going to find a passage like this. We assemble the picture from the words of Jesus and his apostles. With regard to salvation being offered to those with honesty and contrition etc. Review Paul's argument in Romans 4, especially his take on Psalms 32.

Review and meditate on the passages found in the New Testament that speak about the reason why God raised Jesus from the dead.

Think about it for a minute. If the purpose of Jesus' death on the cross was to procure our release from sin and to become the basis for receiving eternal life, then his DEATH served that purpose. Why bring Jesus back to life? Some people who grow up in the church learn about the fact that Jesus died for their sins. But many of them treat the death of Jesus as a "fate accompi" not giving much attention to it. Now that Jesus dealt with our sins and brought us forgiveness, now we can figure out how to make our marriages better, how to have better kids, and how to improve our economic situation. Those with this attitude (not speaking about you of course) never give the cross another thought. Jesus has done everything he needed to do. Now we can get on with living the abundant life.

Might his resurrection serve another purpose? I can think of a couple. For one, according to Paul, God raised Jesus from the dead in order to authenticate Jesus as the one who would save his people from their sins. The promise of salvation through a son of God was predicted in the Hebrew scriptures, and it was the resurrection of Jesus from the dead that identified HIM to be the fulfillment of that promise Romans 1:1-6

Did Jesus save them from their sins at the cross? Yes and no. Yes, in that the death of Jesus on the cross dealt with the enmity between god and man, but no, in that the cross does not save us from the inevitable consequence of sin, i.e. death. The deliverance of the saints from the sting of sin, which is death, takes place later, the moment Jesus shouts, "come forth" and those in Christ rise from the dead to live forever with the Lord. We know this from the accounts in John's gospel where Jesus reveals to both Martha and Mary that he has been granted the authority to raise people from the dead, and he proves his case by example. And if we read through the Gospel of John carefully, we come to learn that the Father has granted his son Jesus the authority over who will enter into his kingdom and who will be left behind. John 5:21 for instance.

On what basis does Jesus then grant eternal life? Paul says we are justified by faith, but what is the content of that faith? Well, among other things, those who die in the Lord, are trusting that Jesus will call them out of the grave when the time comes. And if you think about it, trusting in a promised inheritance, which will be given to you after you die, takes a lot of faith and trust. This is the faith of Abraham, that our hope lies far beyond our own life expectancy. The Spirit intercedes for us now, Romans 8:26-27, but when the time comes, Jesus will intercede for us according to the power of an indestructible life. Hebrews 7:6 God raised Jesus from the dead so that he might save forever those who draw near to God, since he always lives to make intercession for them. Hebrews 7:25

For the most part, those who wish to reconcile with each other often times need an intercessor, and in this case, Jesus is our intercessor, who went before God himself and makes an appeal on our behalf.

I don't know what else to say at this point.

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
<<<Jesus wasn't rescuing innocent life.>>>

And isn’t that amazing? He gave His life for the ungodly, sinners. And for what?

I think you know the answer but in order to speak to the topic issue, we need to come to terms with the Bible. That is, we need to understand how all these concepts, reconciliation, peace, forgiveness, justification, salvation, etc. all relate to each other. I think there is a logic to it, if we bear in mind that reconciliation isn't possible unless both parties agree to the terms that make for peace between them. As you say, the cross is significant for more than one reason. I can think of three or four things right off the bat. But since an overture of reconciliation is not a unilateral situation, the fact that a limited number of human beings make peace with God through the cross, doesn't contract the idea that the overture of reconciliation was made to the entire world. The actualization of peace not only depends on the cross, it also depends on the conciliation of any particular individual who agrees to the meaning of the cross and its implications for his or her own existence.

<<<the fact that a limited number of human beings make peace with God through the cross>>>

Who made/make peace through the blood of Christ? Was it God or is it man?

Tong
R4350

 

[Tong2020]

So did Christ die for all people?

The Bible suggest it is so.

Christ’s death benefits all people, even the whole world. It has eternal benefits and non-eternal benefits. On the former, not all men receives this, but only those the Father have given to the Son to raise up at the last day, unto eternal life.

So yes Christ died for all people on one sense and no on another sense.

If you’ve read my exchanges with CadyandZoe, you will get a better understanding of my view about this matter.

Tong
R4351

 

[Tong2020]

I agree, but let's dig a bit deeper into the letter to the Hebrews a bit. Consider this verse from Hebrews 9

28 so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.

Doesn't this imply or suggest two different activities?
1. bear the sins of many
2. appear a second time for salvation

What do you make of that?

Yes two different things/activities. So?

What is your point? I don’t seem to get it.

Tong
R4352

 

[Tong2020]

Did you know @tong that the atonement was a made up word by I believe Tyndell when translating the Bible he had to think of how Gods anger was appeased and also sin was justified by the blood Christ and ; at that moment became atonement.

Your point?

Comment: I don’t think this is the case that “sin was justified by the blood Christ”.


Tong
R4353

 

[MatthewG]

Why do you think that ?