That Christ would suffer and die for the sins of someone who God the Father would later throw into hell is unthinkable to me. Allow me to quote the beloved Spurgeon:
Jack, what makes you think that in his letter to believers in Rome, Paul was referring in 5:10 to anyone but them?So every person who ever lived, less Jesus, were not sinners, ie, interesting? :o
So every person who ever lived, less Jesus, were not sinners, ie, interesting? :o
Kind of called agape in Jn.3:16 for starters to summarize Mr. Luther and Mr. Chemnitz. I'm just even less than IICor.4:7 due to some minor cracks of sin. Thank you also for caring.
John 3:16 says nothing one way or the other about the scope of the atonement. (ie, how many people Christ died for)
Methinks you're committing eisegesis (seeing something in the text that isn't there)
The error in your thinking is that you see everything concerning salvation as talking about the atoning sacrifice of Christ. That isn't so. Election, for instance, isn't atonement. Justification isn't atonement. Etc.
If the bible says "whoever believes will be saved", it doesn't mean that the atonement had to be available to all just in case a non-elect person believes.
I think if you had a better grasp on unconditional election, your errors in trying to find unlimited atonement around every corner would go away.
Ive made it abundantly clear that Christ's atonement is universal but that not all people are justified through faith because God only elects some people to be saved and not all, so your analysis doesnt accord with the facts. Youre describing what seems to me is your position, because if Im not mistaken you hold that everyone whom Christ atones for is elected and justified, so it appears to me that you are failing to adequately distinguish between atonement, election and justification.
I'm happy to be in the company of Luther and others who believed in both unlimited atonement and unconditional election because that's what the Bible teaches.
For if, while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, then how much more, having been reconciled, will we be saved by His life! (Romans 5:10 HCSB)
You are not taking the chapter and book in context. Paul isn't writing a general letter to humanity. He's writing a letter to the church. So the "we" takes on a more limited meaning.
Ive made it abundantly clear that Christ's atonement is universal but that not all people are justified through faith because God only elects some people to be saved and not all, so your analysis doesnt accord with the facts. Youre describing what seems to me is your position, because if Im not mistaken you hold that everyone whom Christ atones for is elected and justified, so it appears to me that you are failing to adequately distinguish between atonement, election and justification.
I'm happy to be in the company of Luther and others who believed in both unlimited atonement and unconditional election because that's what the Bible teaches.
And to my friend Crimson
Lutherans are required to not only imbibe Romans; but Galatians, and also to inculcate. Let's, together as friends, eyeball Rom.15:16 together. The entire public service here referred to is not intended for the Romans as such, but for them as they are linked in with Paul's plans for a much larger public. For brevity, I'll let you fill in the blanks. Gentiles not that limited.
Everyone who is elect is atoned for. Christ died for the sheep.
I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. (John 10:11 HCSB)
I even did a post about atonement, quoting Hebrews. And I have a thread on Leviticus 16. So I've actually dealt with passages that actually deal with atonement. You deal with passages that don't deal with atonement, and then read atonement into them. So no, I haven't failed to adequately distinguish between election, atonement, and justification.
Jn.10:11, when saying that he lays down his life "for the sheep," the sacrifice of Jesus, which is for the world and all men, is viewed contextually, grammatically with reference to its actual final result, appears in the saved, ie, remember the spurious agape? at Jn.3:16
Jn.10:11, when saying that he lays down his life "for the sheep," the sacrifice of Jesus, which is for the world and all men, is viewed contextually, grammatically with reference to its actual final result, appears in the saved, ie, remember the spurious agape? at Jn.3:16
For if, while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, then how much more, having been reconciled, will we be saved by His life! (Romans 5:10 HCSB)
You are not taking the chapter and book in context. Paul isn't writing a general letter to humanity. He's writing a letter to the church. So the "we" takes on a more limited meaning.
Keep in mind that John 3:16 doesn't talk about atonement.
Just to refresh you memory :o You stated: "Paul isn't writing a general letter to humanity." and so on hence Rom.5:10 need to be explained by Rom.15:16 also in light of IIPet.1:20, 21, correct? Ie, "general public." Only I don't have teeth and wait till you catch my dementia and sometimers, ie, gets worse.
He (Jesus) said in the same chapter to some people "You are not my sheep"
Did Christ lay down his life for them? Keep his words in mind: I lay down my life for my sheep
Why am I supposed to explain Romans 5:10 in light of the other verses?