probably that's silly question:
in the end what's a difference between saying that Jesus died for sins of those who believe in Him, and saying that He died for all sins, but only those who believe in Him are saved?
Or does this second way of think give "more chances" for some who is not christian?
Dear Duskiness,
Thank you for your response. In a way, I understand what you are saying. If I stand condemned on the last day, what difference does it make?
Ed makes some good points, and the most important is perhaps that we are simply not at liberty to say that Jesus didn't die for all when Scripture clearly reveals that He did, even if that is an intellectually unsatisfactory result, or contradicts our ideas about the nature of God. Scripture reveals what God intended us to know. It is not our role to change it.
Aside from that, it seems important to make clear that our salvation depends on an act that occurred outside ourselves. When you read the outreach forum, you often encounter people who are plagued by doubts of their own unworthiness, or who are worried about their ability to believe -- they seek assurance. The irony is that Scripture would have them stop focusing on their own ability to believe or not, i.e., to stop focusing on their own strengths and weaknesses, whether they doubt too much or don't believe enough, whether they have to feel something -- in short, on self, and rather to shift focus on the fact that they have been forgiven because of an historic event, the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross for their sin, no matter who they are or think they are, and it has nothing to do with them. At that point, an enormous weight and obstacle to faith is removed. That is what the church should be preaching. Not an examination of whether God has chosen me to be damned, which encourages self doubt and self examination. For those plagued with doubt, who know they are sinners. It's not about self at all. Ignore self -- focus on the crucified.
That's why I think it important.
Upvote
0