For Whom Did Jesus Christ Die?

TheBibleIsTruth

Well-Known Member
Dec 19, 2017
798
367
Dudley
✟18,402.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
This is dealing with the extent of the Atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ. There are basically two schools of thought on this.

The first, which I firmly believe to be the only as taught in the Holy Bible, is "Universal Redemption", which means that Jesus Christ intended and did die for Adam's fallen race , that is, for "everyone without exception", from Adam till the last person. It must not be confused with "Universal Salvation", the error that every human being will eventually be saved. This is not taught anywhere in Scripture, and must be rejected as rank heresy.

The second is, what scholars like the fourth century theologian, Augustine, taught, that Jesus Christ's death was intended for a certain group of people, that is, "the elect", who have been, from eternity past, "chosen" to salvation, and Jesus' death was only for them, and none of the "non elect" are included, nor can be saved. This is usually known as "Limited Atonement" or "Particular Redemption". This view, as we shall we, is a gross misrepresentation of what the Holy Bible actually teaches, as it teaches that Jesus died for "everyone without distinction", every "class" of people.

The first misrepresentation is from those who call themselves, "Five Point Calvinists", which goes by the acronym, T.U.L.I.P.. We are here only interested in the "L", which is "Limited Atonement". What is really interesting here, from my own personal research, as well as from some of my "Calvinistic" friends, is that John Calvin, whom these "Calvinists" hold they get their "theology" from, never believed in, or taught "Limited Atonement"! Calvin's own remarks on John 3:16, and other passages, clearly show that he was certainly not "limited" in his view on the Atonement. Here is what he says in his own words:

"That whosoever believeth on him may not perish. It is a remarkable commendation of faith, that it frees us from everlasting destruction. For he intended expressly to state that, though we appear to have been born to death, undoubted deliverance is offered to us by the faith of Christ; and, therefore, that we ought not to fear death, which otherwise hangs over us. And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life."

Note even the use of "all men without exception", something a "Calvinist" would never say! Can any honest person doubt that Calvin did not believe in any "Limited Atonement"? Commenting on the words of Jesus Christ in Mark 14:24, "which is shed for many", Calvin, where it would have been expected to say, "this shows that ALL are not intended, but only the elect", says, "By the word many he means not a part of the world only, but the whole human race". This again is very much for "Universal Redemption"! Again, commenting on Colossians 1:14, and the words, "In whom we have redemption", Calvin says, "He says that this redemption was procured through the blood of Christ, for by the sacrifice of his death all the sins of the world have been expiated". Can any "Calvinist" still hold that Calvin taught any "limitations" to the Atonement of Jesus Christ?

I will only give one further example from the Word of God, on "for whom did Jesus Christ die". This can be found in the passage of the Lord's Supper as recorded by the Apostle Luke, in his Gospel, chapter 22. Luke is the only writer of the Four Gospels who tells us in very plain language, that the person who would betray the Lord Jesus Christ, Judas Iscariot, whose sin is the greatest against God Almighty, was included in the Atonement of Jesus Christ.

"And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for YOU. Do this in remembrance of me.” And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for YOU is the new covenant in my blood. But behold, the hand of him who betrays me is with me on the table. For the Son of Man goes as it has been determined, but woe to that man by whom he is betrayed!” (19-22)

It is very important to note, the timing of the Institution of the Lord's Supper by Jesus Himself. He could have waited for Judas to have left the room, and then said the words about His Death, and thus only have spoken to the eleven. But, He does not do this, and includes His would be traitor, Judas, in His use of "YOU". Here we have God Incarnate, the Lord Jesus Christ, tell us exactly for WHOM He died on the cross! There can be no doubt to the honest mind, that Jesus says that He died for "EVERYONE WITHOUT EXCEPTION"! AMEN!

These are the comments of two leading "Calvinists" on Judas and the Lord's Supper.

"From Luke's account it appears most clearly, that Judas was not only at the passover, but at the Lord's supper, since this was said when both were over." (John Gill)

"it seems plain that Judas did receive the Lord's supper, did eat of that bread and drink of that cup; for, after the solemnity was over, Christ said, Behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table." (Matthew Henry)

Those who have ears, let them hear!

Ad Dei Gloriam!
 

Francis Drake

Returning adventurer.
Apr 14, 2013
4,000
2,508
✟184,952.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Independence-Party
Jesus Christ could have died for everybody but everybody doesn't want him.
So now He only died for the people who the Father gave him = John 6:37
That's not right. His blood paid for all.
Jesus, the second Adam died for every last one on the planet, which set them back to the position the first Adam was before he sinned.
Unfortunately, just like the first Adam, despite being free they still rejected God's sovereignty and went their own way.
 
Upvote 0

TheBibleIsTruth

Well-Known Member
Dec 19, 2017
798
367
Dudley
✟18,402.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
That's not right. His blood paid for all.
Jesus, the second Adam died for every last one on the planet, which set them back to the position the first Adam was before he sinned.
Unfortunately, just like the first Adam, despite being free they still rejected God's sovereignty and went their own way.

Right! the fact that Jesus also died for Judas, shows beyond any doubt, that His death included ALL of Adam's lost race! There is no way that Jesus could have instituted the Lord's Supper, with the words, "this My blood, shed for YOU", when Judas was still in the room, and not mean it! It is "straining at a gnat" for those who will continue to dispute what the Bible very clearly teaches, simply because it does not conform to their "theology! John 3:16 is all about God's immense love for the whole human race, which also clearly teaches about salvation, which even John Calvin saw to be true! Yet, there are so-called "Five Point Calvinists", in spite of the fact that Calvin never believed in any Limited Atonement, will keep on arguing for what is so very wrong!
 
Upvote 0

Francis Drake

Returning adventurer.
Apr 14, 2013
4,000
2,508
✟184,952.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Independence-Party
Right! the fact that Jesus also died for Judas, shows beyond any doubt, that His death included ALL of Adam's lost race! There is no way that Jesus could have instituted the Lord's Supper, with the words, "this My blood, shed for YOU", when Judas was still in the room, and not mean it! It is "straining at a gnat" for those who will continue to dispute what the Bible very clearly teaches, simply because it does not conform to their "theology! John 3:16 is all about God's immense love for the whole human race, which also clearly teaches about salvation, which even John Calvin saw to be true! Yet, there are so-called "Five Point Calvinists", in spite of the fact that Calvin never believed in any Limited Atonement, will keep on arguing for what is so very wrong!
Yes.
Jesus came as the "Second Adam" in response to the first Adam.

The first Adam, as the original man, caused all of humanity that descended from him to have a fallen spiritual nature.

If Jesus's blood was not available for all of humanity descended from the First Adam, he has no right to the title of "Second Adam"!

Jesus made full provision for all in his death, but whether men accept the need for his provision is their freewill choice.
 
Upvote 0

TheBibleIsTruth

Well-Known Member
Dec 19, 2017
798
367
Dudley
✟18,402.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
In John chapter 5 we have a very interesting account of the wideness of God's love, compassion and mercy for those who were very much opposed to Jesus Christ. These are those who also sought to murder Him (v.18), for claiming to be "equal to God" (v.18), a charge Jesus never denied, because it was true. To these murdering Jews, our Lord says, "You have sent to John and he has testified to the truth. Not that I accept human testimony; but I mention it that you may be saved"(v. 33-34). Here we have the words of God Incarnate, Who clearly tells these Jews, that all that He was telling them, was for their benefit, "in order that they may be saved"! Again, this would be impossible if, as some hold, that Jesus only died "for the elect"!. Further, Jesus tells these same Jews, "You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life."(v.39-40).Notice Jesus' words here. He does not say, "you cannot come", but "you refuse to come", which is what the Greek text says! This means that these Jews had "free wills" to either "accept" or "reject" the Gospel Message, and they CHOSE the latter! This would also mean that Jesus would have died for these Jews, as He is here offering them eternal life, but they did not want it! This passage, like many others in the Bible, clearly teaches that "Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners (the entire human race)" (1 Timothy 1:15). But sinful man does not want to know the ways of the Lord!
 
Upvote 0

Doug Melven

Well-Known Member
Nov 2, 2017
3,080
2,576
60
Wyoming
✟83,208.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Jesus Christ could have died for everybody but everybody doesn't want him.
So now He only died for the people who the Father gave him = John 6:37
Where does it say Jesus ONLY died for the elect?
Look at the parable of the sower in Matthew 13.
Jesus is the sower of the seed.
The seed is the Word of God.
Some get saved and some don't.
We have a choice as to what type of ground we are.
 
Upvote 0

Neostarwcc

We are saved purely by the work and grace of God.
Site Supporter
Dec 13, 2015
5,261
4,237
37
US
✟919,863.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Jesus died for the elect in the sense of every single person who would ever come to him for salvation he died for. This is made extremely clear in John 6:37-40 when Jesus said that all who come to him for salvation he will lose none of them. So Jesus didn't die for everyone. If he died for everyone then universalism would be truth. Yet it is taught nowhere in scripture. What is taught in scripture is that everyone who accepts Jesus as their Lord and savior will be saved. Also known as the elect. This doesn't mean that the non elect can't be saved it means that the non elect are people who God foreknew would NEVER accept Jesus.
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: PrettyboyAndy
Upvote 0

TheBibleIsTruth

Well-Known Member
Dec 19, 2017
798
367
Dudley
✟18,402.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Jesus died for the elect in the sense of every single person who would ever come to him for salvation he died for. This is made extremely clear in John 6:37-40 when Jesus said that all who come to him for salvation he will lose none of them. So Jesus didn't die for everyone. If he died for everyone then universalism would be truth. Yet it is taught nowhere in scripture. What is taught in scripture is that everyone who accepts Jesus as their Lord and savior will be saved. Also known as the elect. This doesn't mean that the non elect can't be saved it means that the non elect are people who God foreknew would NEVER accept Jesus.

can you explain the fact that Judas was present when Jesus told him and the others that He shed His blood for them ALL? You cannot base any doctrine simply on a single passage of Scripture. Even John Calvin whom "Calvinists" claim believed in "limited atonement", never did as his own comments as I have shown, prove. Neither did Jesus teach it as I have also shown from John chapter 5. Regardless of our "theology", the Bible very clearly teaches the universal atonement of Jesus Christ. This does not mean as some suppose, that it equates to universal salvation, as both "repentance and belief" in the Gospel are a pre-requirement (Mark 1:15, etc)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

bling

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,184
1,809
✟802,426.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Atonement is a huge topic and takes lots of scriptures to understand, but I do like to discuss the topic since I see it as extremely significant.

In one since there is “limited” atonement since not everyone’s’ sins are atoned for and in another since the atonement sacrifice was made for every sinner so the sacrifice of Christ on the cross was for all.

The way to reconcile these two truths is in the understanding (definition) of “atonement”.

The Jews, especially the men, Jesus and lots of the New Testament was directly addressing, had direct individual experience with atonement through going through the atonement process for unintentional (minor) sins. God provided that wonderful education which we can only read about in Lev. 5 and try to imagine the experience for ourselves. We would also realize if we have to go through all this for “minor” (unintentional sins) than rebellious disobedience sins would require something unbelievably greater.

First off: the atonement sacrifice itself (Christ going to the cross) does not complete the atonement process since there is a part the sinner plays (again this would be understood best by those Jews who had experienced the atonement process for unintentional sins). Jesus and God have both done their part in the atonement process, but the individual sinner has to complete their part or atonement is not completed and if atonement is not completed the forgiveness is not assured. (God’s forgiveness for minor (unintentional sins) came after the correct completion of the atonement process (Lev. 5)).

Secondly: The part the sinner plays is nothing: worthy of anything, righteous, deserving of anything, or honorable. It is more like criminal, horrible and disgraceful, but necessary.

Christ Crucified is described by Paul, Peter, Jesus, John and the Hebrew writer as a ransom payment (it is not even said to be like a ransom payment, but it was a ransom payment).

I find the ransom description more than just an analogy and an excellent fit and I am not talking about the “Ransom Theory of Atonement”

(The “Ransom Theory of Atonement” has God paying satan the cruel torture, humiliation and murder of Christ but: Does God owe Satan anything? Is there some cosmic “law” saying you have to pay the kidnapper? Would it not be wrong for God to pay satan, if God could just as easily and safely take back His children without paying satan?)


A ransom as those in the first century might understand it (it was well known Caesura at 21 had been kidnapped and a ransom paid for him) included the following elements:


1. Someone other than the captive paying the ransom.

2. The payment is a huge sacrificial payment for the payer, who would personally prefer not to pay.

3. Since those that come to God must come as children, it is the children of God that go to the Father.

4. The payer cannot safely or for some other reason get his children any other way than making the payment.

5. The kidnapper is totally undeserving.

6. The kidnapper can accept or reject the payment.

We can agree on most of the parts with the atonement process being just like a ransom experience: The children of God be held out of the kingdom; Deity making the huge sacrificial payment; Christ’s torture, humiliation and murder on the cross being the payment; and the freedom given the child to enter the kingdom after the ransom is paid. But who is this unworthy kidnapper God will pay to release His child.

We can only come to our Father as children, so who is keeping the nonbeliever in the unbelieving state (who is this kidnapper)?


There is the one ransom, but could there be many unworthy kidnappers holding the children of God back?

Does not the nonbeliever himself hold the potential child of God (within them) back from the kingdom?

If the kidnapper does accept the payment has he/she done something worthy or virtually criminal?

You do have a substitute at the cross, standing in for you, but is it: those that cried crucify him, the religious leaders, the Roman soldiers, one of the thieves, or maybe one of the disciples who ran away. To say: “Christ took my place” is extremely bold on your part, although you can be crucified “with” Christ like a deserving thief and join Christ in paradise.

That is just an introduction to think about.
 
Upvote 0

TheBibleIsTruth

Well-Known Member
Dec 19, 2017
798
367
Dudley
✟18,402.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Atonement is a huge topic and takes lots of scriptures to understand, but I do like to discuss the topic since I see it as extremely significant.

In one since there is “limited” atonement since not everyone’s’ sins are atoned for and in another since the atonement sacrifice was made for every sinner so the sacrifice of Christ on the cross was for all.

The way to reconcile these two truths is in the understanding (definition) of “atonement”.

The Jews, especially the men, Jesus and lots of the New Testament was directly addressing, had direct individual experience with atonement through going through the atonement process for unintentional (minor) sins. God provided that wonderful education which we can only read about in Lev. 5 and try to imagine the experience for ourselves. We would also realize if we have to go through all this for “minor” (unintentional sins) than rebellious disobedience sins would require something unbelievably greater.

First off: the atonement sacrifice itself (Christ going to the cross) does not complete the atonement process since there is a part the sinner plays (again this would be understood best by those Jews who had experienced the atonement process for unintentional sins). Jesus and God have both done their part in the atonement process, but the individual sinner has to complete their part or atonement is not completed and if atonement is not completed the forgiveness is not assured. (God’s forgiveness for minor (unintentional sins) came after the correct completion of the atonement process (Lev. 5)).

Secondly: The part the sinner plays is nothing: worthy of anything, righteous, deserving of anything, or honorable. It is more like criminal, horrible and disgraceful, but necessary.

Christ Crucified is described by Paul, Peter, Jesus, John and the Hebrew writer as a ransom payment (it is not even said to be like a ransom payment, but it was a ransom payment).

I find the ransom description more than just an analogy and an excellent fit and I am not talking about the “Ransom Theory of Atonement”

(The “Ransom Theory of Atonement” has God paying satan the cruel torture, humiliation and murder of Christ but: Does God owe Satan anything? Is there some cosmic “law” saying you have to pay the kidnapper? Would it not be wrong for God to pay satan, if God could just as easily and safely take back His children without paying satan?)


A ransom as those in the first century might understand it (it was well known Caesura at 21 had been kidnapped and a ransom paid for him) included the following elements:


1. Someone other than the captive paying the ransom.

2. The payment is a huge sacrificial payment for the payer, who would personally prefer not to pay.

3. Since those that come to God must come as children, it is the children of God that go to the Father.

4. The payer cannot safely or for some other reason get his children any other way than making the payment.

5. The kidnapper is totally undeserving.

6. The kidnapper can accept or reject the payment.

We can agree on most of the parts with the atonement process being just like a ransom experience: The children of God be held out of the kingdom; Deity making the huge sacrificial payment; Christ’s torture, humiliation and murder on the cross being the payment; and the freedom given the child to enter the kingdom after the ransom is paid. But who is this unworthy kidnapper God will pay to release His child.

We can only come to our Father as children, so who is keeping the nonbeliever in the unbelieving state (who is this kidnapper)?


There is the one ransom, but could there be many unworthy kidnappers holding the children of God back?

Does not the nonbeliever himself hold the potential child of God (within them) back from the kingdom?

If the kidnapper does accept the payment has he/she done something worthy or virtually criminal?

You do have a substitute at the cross, standing in for you, but is it: those that cried crucify him, the religious leaders, the Roman soldiers, one of the thieves, or maybe one of the disciples who ran away. To say: “Christ took my place” is extremely bold on your part, although you can be crucified “with” Christ like a deserving thief and join Christ in paradise.

That is just an introduction to think about.

You have lost me!
 
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,184
1,809
✟802,426.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
You have lost me!
Doe you see the issue with these two truths:
In one since there is “limited” atonement since not everyone’s’ sins are atoned for and in another since the atonement sacrifice was made for every sinner so the sacrifice of Christ on the cross was for all.
 
Upvote 0

TheBibleIsTruth

Well-Known Member
Dec 19, 2017
798
367
Dudley
✟18,402.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Doe you see the issue with these two truths:
In one since there is “limited” atonement since not everyone’s’ sins are atoned for and in another since the atonement sacrifice was made for every sinner so the sacrifice of Christ on the cross was for all.

The Atonement of Jesus was for the sins of the whole human race. Once and for all time. However no sinners sins are removed until the time they repent of their sins and by faith accepted the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross. There is no limitations on the Atonement in scope or intention as the Calvinists suppose
 
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,184
1,809
✟802,426.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The Atonement of Jesus was for the sins of the whole human race. Once and for all time. However no sinners sins are removed until the time they repent of their sins and by faith accepted the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross. There is no limitations on the Atonement in scope or intention as the Calvinists suppose
Jesus performed the atonement sacrifice for everyone, which is not the entire atonement or ,as I refer to it, atonement process.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

TheBibleIsTruth

Well-Known Member
Dec 19, 2017
798
367
Dudley
✟18,402.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Jesus performed the atonement sacrifice for everyone, which is not the entire atonement or ,as I refer to it, atonement process.

With all respect you don't seem to understand the teaching in the Bible on the Atonement
 
Upvote 0

yeshuaslavejeff

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Jan 6, 2005
39,944
11,098
okie
✟214,996.00
Faith
Anabaptist
The first, which I firmly believe to be the only as taught in the Holy Bible, is "Universal Redemption", which means that Jesus Christ intended and did die for Adam's fallen race , that is, for "everyone without exception", from Adam till the last person. It must not be confused with "Universal Salvation", the error that every human being will eventually be saved. This is not taught anywhere in Scripture, and must be rejected as rank heresy.


Why? Since not everyone (most in fact) are NOT redeemed,
and
obviously not everyone (by far) is ever saved,
but
no one will change what they believe ,
so
why ?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

TheBibleIsTruth

Well-Known Member
Dec 19, 2017
798
367
Dudley
✟18,402.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Why? Since not everyone (most in fact) are NOT redeemed,
and
obviously not everyone (by far) is ever saved,
but
no one will change what they believe ,
so
why ?

I have said why!
 
Upvote 0