Jesus Christ: A Ransom for ALL

[DeaconDean]

Your copy/paste contradicts what you said.
You said: "The debt He paid, the ransom He paid, is for every person, but ..."
This copy/paste says it isn't for every person.
My question "How is the ransom "for" every person?" applies to what you said but not to this article you pasted; because it's saying something entirely different.

If I give you, rather deposit $1,000,000 in your bank account, what good is it if you never take advantage of it?

The sin debt, has been paid, but not every man takes advantage of it. But it is certain that the "elect" will.

That is the essence of what it says above.

"And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." -Acts 13:48 (KJV)

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

Let me add this:

"One of the main arguments used against limited atonement is that, if Christ did not atone for the sins of everybody in the world and if God only intended to save the elect, how do you explain the numerous biblical passages that indicate the free offer of the gospel to “whosoever will come?” How can God offer salvation to all, including those whom He has not elected or foreordained to be saved? How can we understand the paradox that occurs because the Bible teaches God intends that only the elect will be saved, yet, on the other hand, the Bible also unequivocally declares that God freely and sincerely offers salvation to everyone who will believe? (Ezekiel 33:11; Isaiah 45:22; 55:1; Matthew 11:28; 23:37; 2 Peter 3:9; Revelation 22:17) The solution to this paradox is simply an acknowledgment of all that the Bible teaches. 1) The call of the gospel is universal in the sense that anybody that hears it and believes in it will be saved. 2) Because everyone is dead in trespasses and sin, no one will believe the gospel and respond in faith unless God first makes those who are dead in their trespasses and sins alive (Ephesians 2:1-5). The Bible teaches that “whosoever believes” will have eternal life and then explains why some believe and some don’t.

Another argument against limited atonement points to the passages in the Bible that speak of Christ’s atonement in a more general or unlimited sense. For example, in 1 John 2:2 John says that Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the “whole world.” Likewise, in John 4:42 Jesus is called the “Savior of the world” and in John 1:29 is said to “take way the sin of the world.” Other verses that seem to indicate an unlimited view of the atonement include 2 Corinthians 5:14-15: “He died for all” and 1 Timothy 2:6: “He gave Himself a ransom for all” (although Matthew 20:28 and Mark 10:45 say Christ came to “give His life a ransom for many”). Those who believe in unlimited atonement use such verses to make the point that, if Christ died for all and takes away the sins of the world, then His atonement cannot be limited to only the elect. However, these verses are easily reconciled with the many other verses that support the doctrine of limited atonement simply by recognizing that often the Bible uses the words “world” or “all” in a limited sense. They do not automatically mean “every individual in the entire world.” This is evident when just a few verses are considered. In Luke 2:1 it is recorded that a “decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered,” and Luke 2:3 says, “So all went to be registered everyone to his own city.” But, clearly, it is not talking about every individual in the whole world. Caesar’s decree did not apply to the Japanese, Chinese or countless other people throughout the world.

Similarly, the Pharisees, being dismayed at Jesus’ growing popularity said, “Look how the whole world has gone after Him!” Did every single person in the world follow Jesus? Or was the “world” limited to a small area of Israel in which Jesus preached?

So, it should be readily apparent that the phrase “all” or “all the world” does not necessarily mean every individual. Understanding that basic fact allows one to consider each of these seemingly universal passages in their contexts, and, when that is done, it becomes apparent that they do not present any conflict with the doctrine of limited atonement.

Yet another argument against limited atonement is that it is a hindrance to the preaching of the gospel and to evangelism. Those that use this argument will say that if an evangelist cannot say, “Christ died for you,” then his effectiveness in presenting the gospel will be limited. Or they will say that, if only the elect will be saved, why should the gospel be preached at all? Once again, these objections are easily dealt with. The gospel is to be preached to everyone because it is the power of God to salvation for all who believe (Romans 1:16), and it is the means that God has ordained by which the elect will be saved (Romans 10:14-17). Also, the evangelist does not need to tell the unbeliever that “Christ died for your sins,” specifically. All he needs to proclaim is that Christ died to pay the penalty for sin and provide a way for sinners to be reconciled to a holy God. Believe in Him, and you will be saved."

Source

Another paradox is seen in another message Paul wrote.

Paul says: "Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ." (Gal. 6:2)

Yet he turns right around and 3 verses later says: "For every man shall bear his own burden." Gal.6:5

Like I said, its a both/and, not an either/or.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[shakewell]

The debt He paid, the ransom He paid, is for every person, but it is limited in that only the elect will accept and believe (Efficacious(Irresitable) Grace).

You say here that the ransom is "for every person". I agree with that part of your statement. I'll repeat my question because you haven't answered it:
How is the ransom "for" the persons who are not among this elect you refer to? You are saying that it's for them too.

 

[bling]

I like John Gill, I have used his commentary quite extensively, and have found only a very times, where I disagree with him.

John Gill has in fact been accused of "Hyper-Calvinism".

But I still like him none-the-less.

First off, let me very LOUD and Clear, Jesus Christ, Son of the Living God did pay the penalty for sin. His atonement, was indeed "unlimited" in its offer, but it is certainly "limited" as to whom it is effectual.

Many people here want desperately to over emphasize that Christ's death on the cross was all mankind. And it certainly was. But...

What does the word ransom mean?

"The root word is luo {loo'-o} translated in other places as to loose 27, break 5, destroy 2, dissolve 2, put off 1, melt 1, break up 1, break down It speaks of loosing any person (or thing) tied or fastened down ie- a) bandages of the feet, or the shoes,

It certainly refers to loosing one bound, i.e. to unbind, release from bonds, set free

one bound with chains (a prisoner), discharge from prison, to let go.

A ransom is the price paid for the redemption and deliverance of someone who has been taken hostage.

The Greek word used in our text is ANTILUTRON... AV - ransom it is the only time this form of the word is used in the NT. 1) the price for redeeming, price paid for slaves, captives In this case it refers to the price paid to liberate many from misery and the penalty of their sins.

It is a very emphatic word ... it means "a corresponding price" not just a price being paid, but the appropriate price was paid.

It conveys that a just price was exacted... there was not an unfairly high price paid for things he did not receive... it has happened to you- you have paid a price for something and when you have got home you have discovered that what the box or advertisement promised was more glamorous than the thing actually purchased. Christ’s payment was not of such a nature! It was appropriate."

Source

You do a very great job defining “ransom” and the ransom fit perfectly what happened.

You have Christ in two Gospels calling it a ransom plus: Paul, John, Peter and the Hebrew writer calling it a ransom, so it is repeated lots of times, by lots of writers. Some translators do add the word “as” to make it “as a ransom”, but as is not in the original Greek so it is an actual ransom being paid.

Being a ransoming you have the following:

1. There is a child being held back from his/her parents.


2. The ransom payment is huge.


3. The parent must personally sacrifice to get the payment together.


4. After the payment is made and accepted the child is set free to go to the Parent.


5. The question is: Who is the undeserving kidnapper hoping the child back from the Father?


6. Follow up question is: Since all children do not go to the father did the kidnapper refuse the payment or did the Father not pay enough?


It is a ransom atonement scenario, but it is not the Ransom Theory of atonement. (the Ransom theory has God paying satan off, which is not what happened).

Think about this:

When you go to the nonbeliever and try to persuade him to accept Christ Who do you blame for holding him back? Do you pray to God to let Him go? Do you pray to God to have satan let him go (feeling the “fault” for his not coming is satan fault and not the person themselves)? Do you pray for the right words to tough the nonbeliever’s heart to let go, quit fighting God, trust God’s Love, and repent (change and become a child again)?

Think about this, in the prodigal son story: did the rebellious disobedient hater of his father return home (the person that left) or did a changed to a different person, a humble young son (child of the Father) return home? Who was holding the young son captive in the foreign land? How about the rebellious disobedient hater of his father was holding the humble child back from the father (himself but not really the same person is it?)

You must be that child again to enter the Kingdom:

Matthew 18:3 and said, “Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.

Mark 10:15 Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.”

Who I see as the kidnappers are undeserving sinners holding the child of God within them back from going to the Father. God is willing to pay them a huge ransom (really as a gift since it is undeserved) of Christ’s tortured, humiliation and murder to let go. Most people refuse the ransom, do not appreciate the ransom, do not believe the ransom happened or do not care about what Christ did, so the child within them is not set free.

 

[Marvin Knox]

I like John Gill, I have used his commentary quite extensively, and have found only a very times, where I disagree with him.
John Gill has in fact been accused of "Hyper-Calvinism".
But I still like him none-the-less. .

It’s very nice to talk to someone who isn’t out to insult people just because he disagrees on a particular point - as is MDC. What a piece of work he is.

I like John Gill as well and have received from him a few times as I have from others I sometimes disagree with. I just believe he is wrong on this particular point.

I’m not one to disparage a fellow Christian with his kind of dedication just because I don’t buy into everything he has found in some instance. My example of taking the name of “Gillite” was only used because his name was handy. No disparagement was intended toward him or toward anyone who quotes him.

First off, let me very LOUD and Clear, Jesus Christ, Son of the Living God did pay the penalty for sin. His atonement, was indeed "unlimited" in its offer, but it is certainly "limited" as to whom it is effectual. ……..

I agree with you. If only people referring to limited atonement just meant that it was limited as to whom it is “effectual” --- all would be well with me and 5-pointers (as well as with Calvinists and Arminians at least on this particular letter of T.U.L.I.P). Of course Arminians would disagree with the first two letters for sure. But they certainly would agree in most cases with the thought that everyone is not saved (is effectually atoned for) in spite of the atonement being what they might call universal. But – as we know – that is not all that is meant when hard line Calvinists use the word “limited”.

Many people here want desperately to over emphasize that Christ's death on the cross was all mankind. And it certainly was. But...What does the word ransom mean?..............loosing, put off, release from bonds etc.......It is a very emphatic word ... it means "a corresponding price" not just a price being paid, but the appropriate price was paid……..

I have no problem with those meanings for the word ransom.

So...ask yourself this, what did Christ "ransom" us from?
Now some people will something along this line:
…………" John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." (And leave it there as if this settles the argument)."
And the author also provides this answer:
It is not quite apparent to me why the text of John 3:16 should be an argument against limited atonement……..
(Which here, this agrees completely with what John Gill said) ……. Its actually funny that people use John 3:16 as an argument against "limited atonement". Because while the offer is open to "whosoever will" is an established fact that not everybody is included in "whosoever will". And one may say that those who use Jn. 3:16 as an argument for unlimited atonement, they are actually making an argument for limited atonement. .

I agree with this assessment of what John 3:16 does and doesn’t say. I personally would never use John 3:16 as a primary proof text to argue against limited atonement. Other 4 pointer like Bruce Ware or Randy Alcorn, for instance, wouldn’t either.

"And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." -Acts 13:48 (KJV)

Who knows the number of people who turned out to here the preaching? And who knows the number which actually believed? But one thing is certain, those and only those "ordained to eternal life believed".……..

I have no problem with the concept of election.

Election is covered under the “U” of T.U.L.I.P. It stands on it’s own merit IMO and does not come into play concerning limited atonement.

We also have to ask the question: "What sins did Christ die for?"
The usual answer would be for all sins. The sins of the entire world. (cf. 1 Jn. 2:2)
But there is a hole in this argument.
Did Jesus die for the sin of "unbelief"? If so, then why do people still die and go to hell?
The article I quoted from actually answers that question as well: ".…

Yes – Jesus died for the sins of unbelief.

People die and go to Hell because of any number of sins for which Christ died.

Unless one is a universal salvation type (I don’t know any – do you?) the sin of unbelief has no more bearing on the concept of limited atonement vs. unlimited atonement than does the sin of adultery.

I’m sure you would agree that Christ died for the unbelief of the elect. Yet – the elect are enemies of God and children of wrath up until they are justified by faith. That’s true for everyone out there elect or not.

Some never receive forgiveness because they do not believe unto salvation. They do no so believe because of their total depravity combined with their no being among the elect. But then we have no problem there do we?

Christ died for all of the sins of His elect, including their previous sin of unbelief. Belief in the Gospel does not make up for our previous sin of unbelief.

I really don’t understand where you are coming from with that comment.

I, and I would think most of the elect , certainly hope that you are wrong about that.

I did a lot of that unbelieving before I was saved by grace through faith- even did a small bit of it since being born again.

Belief (faith) is the witness that God has already wrought grace in our hearts, the inevitable response to His work of regeneration in our souls. (John 3:21) Christ clearly came to lay down His life for His sheep (John 10:11) and some people are not his sheep: ".

No problem with the first part.

The second part (if I get what you are insinuating) goes beyond what the passage and or logic dictates. It says nothing about whether He also lay down His life for non-sheep or anything else. Let’s not go beyond what is there.

..but you do not believe because you are not my sheep." (John 10:26) Jesus prayed for His own but he would not pray for those the Father had NOT given him: "I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours." Emphasis mine (John 17:9)."

I have never had a problem with the concept of election and I agree with you concerning what is being said here.

"If Christ died for every man then he did so conditionally or absolutely.

Of course – there seems to be no third way.

If absolutely then every man is saved whatever he does and thinks of God. He need never think of God , want God, care of how much he has offended God, he is going to heaven even if he dies in a drunken stupor having choked on his own vomit in a brothel with a blood stained knife in his hand and a warrant out for his arrest for drug dealing to 10 year olds... it matters not... he is going to heaven... for Christ has paid the price... there is nothing justify for him to do.

No – one is justified (saved) only by exercising saving faith. The atonement saves no one in and of itself unless combined with faith. Even election saves no one until it is combined with faith. You and I were children of wrath even as the rest of the world up until we were saved by grace through a personal faith.

If conditionally we ask what is that condition? You may say "faith in Christ"- but it is clear that no man can perform or conjure up "faith" in Christ... sinners are dead in trespasses and sins.. they can no more believe upon Christ than a dead man can believe that there is a way for him to be made alive again. Faith is "a gift of God"- "By grace are you saved through faith and that not of yourselves it is the gift of God."

I have never had a problem with total depravity or with election or with irresistible grace or with eternal security. You must think you are talking to a non-Reformed believer. That is not the case.

Anyway is it a sin or is it not a sin to fail to believe in God... surely faithlessness is a sinful condition... if so why did the death of Christ not cover it? Surely Christ’s death if it was for all men’s sins covered the sin of not believing God.

Yes it is a sin and I did a lot of it before being saved. So did every other saved person-be they Calvinist or Arminian.

Christ’s death did not cover it for Calvinists and it did not cover it for Arminians until they believed unto salvation. Lack of faith is the same reason you and I were both children of wrath and without hope and without God in this world for some time before belief.

I hope you are evangelical. I hope you believe that one must exercise a personal faith to be saved. Neither the atonement itself, election itself, what church you belong to, nor how many confessions you have memorized saves a person. From my days as an elder in the Presbyterian Church, I know of plenty of Calvinists who believe they are among the elect and saved. But (although I can’t judge for sure of course) it doesn’t appear to me (either by a changed life or by an explanation of their belief system) that they have passed from death to life and exercised a personal and saving faith.

If you say Salvation is provided for every man providing he will take it- you are asking for a greater thing than the one who would offer a blind man $1000 providing he can see it first.... or assuring a dead man that great rewards await him providing he can first raise himself from the dead.

No more so than if I were preaching to the elect (not that I’d know until I saw their reaction to my message).

The elect can’t respond either in their natural state.

So if he died for all without condition then all are saved! Or If he died for all upon the condition they believe.. none are saved, for the dead soul cannot believe of it’s self.

It is certainly true that all would be saved if there were not any conditions to receiving salvation.

In the second sentence here you are conflating the doctrines of the extent of the atonement and election again.

They are not the same doctrines. They are two separate letters in T.U.L.I.P.

Therefore, we conclude, he died for some men absolutely and purchased a full and perfect salvation for them so all will be saved for whom he died! His death won for all of His people the graces of conversion of the will, repentance from sin, faith towards God... He purchased full and complete salvation for His people!"

If you conclude He died “effectually” for only some – you would be correct.

When you say (or at least teach) that His death purchased election – you are wrong IMO. We were elect before Christ died and, indeed, elect before the foundation of the world.

He purchased full and complete salvation for all who will but believe. Election assures that some will believe.

So which is the glorifying doctrine? Unlimited atonement, or Limited Atonement?

Unlimited atonement is more glorifying and also more Biblical IMO.

I appreciate all the work that goes into posts like these. But, please, one point at a time from now on out. These take too much time and I won’t be able to respond.

P.S. Thinking through limited atonement again has reinforced what I have felt for a long time dating back to when i myself taught from the T.U.L.I.P. acronym.

"Limited atonement" is at best redundant when presented to Reformed folks who believe the other points - like me. Witness your tendency to conflate limited atonement with election in our last posts.

At worst it is highly offensive when presented to Arminians. One can never realistically expect them to look objectively at the other 4 points when this middle one is anywhere in sight.

 

[DeaconDean]

It’s very nice to talk to someone who isn’t out to insult people just because he disagrees on a particular point - as is MDC. What a piece of work he is.

I like John Gill as well and have received from him a few times as I have from others I sometimes disagree with. I just believe he is wrong on this particular point.

I’m not one to disparage a fellow Christian with his kind of dedication just because I don’t buy into everything he has found in some instance. My example of taking the name of “Gillite” was only used because his name was handy. No disparagement was intended toward him or toward anyone who quotes him.

I agree with you. If only people referring to limited atonement just meant that it was limited as to whom it is “effectual” --- all would be well with me and 5-pointers (as well as with Calvinists and Arminians at least on this particular letter of T.U.L.I.P). Of course Arminians would disagree with the first two letters for sure. But they certainly would agree in most cases with the thought that everyone is not saved (is effectually atoned for) in spite of the atonement being what they might call universal. But – as we know – that is not all that is meant when hard line Calvinists use the word “limited”.

I have no problem with those meanings for the word ransom.

I agree with this assessment of what John 3:16 does and doesn’t say. I personally would never use John 3:16 as a primary proof text to argue against limited atonement. Other 4 pointer like Bruce Ware or Randy Alcorn, for instance, wouldn’t either.

I have no problem with the concept of election.

Election is covered under the “U” of T.U.L.I.P. It stands on it’s own merit IMO and does not come into play concerning limited atonement.

Yes – Jesus died for the sins of unbelief.

People die and go to Hell because of any number of sins for which Christ died.

Unless one is a universal salvation type (I don’t know any – do you?) the sin of unbelief has no more bearing on the concept of limited atonement vs. unlimited atonement than does the sin of adultery.

I’m sure you would agree that Christ died for the unbelief of the elect. Yet – the elect are enemies of God and children of wrath up until they are justified by faith. That’s true for everyone out there elect or not.

Some never receive forgiveness because they do not believe unto salvation. They do no so believe because of their total depravity combined with their no being among the elect. But then we have no problem there do we?

I really don’t understand where you are coming from with that comment.

I, and I would think most of the elect , certainly hope that you are wrong about that.

I did a lot of that unbelieving before I was saved by grace through faith- even did a small bit of it since being born again.

No problem with the first part.

The second part (if I get what you are insinuating) goes beyond what the passage and or logic dictates. It says nothing about whether He also lay down His life for non-sheep or anything else. Let’s not go beyond what is there.

I have never had a problem with the concept of election and I agree with you concerning what is being said here.

Of course – there seems to be no third way.

No – one is justified (saved) only by exercising saving faith. The atonement saves no one in and of itself unless combined with faith. Even election saves no one until it is combined with faith. You and I were children of wrath even as the rest of the world up until we were saved by grace through a personal faith.

I have never had a problem with total depravity or with election or with irresistible grace or with eternal security. You must think you are talking to a non-Reformed believer. That is not the case.

Yes it is a sin and I did a lot of it before being saved. So did every other saved person-be they Calvinist or Arminian.

Christ’s death did not cover it for Calvinists and it did not cover it for Arminians until they believed unto salvation. Lack of faith is the same reason you and I were both children of wrath and without hope and without God in this world for some time before belief.

I hope you are evangelical. I hope you believe that one must exercise a personal faith to be saved. Neither the atonement itself, election itself, what church you belong to, nor how many confessions you have memorized saves a person. From my days as an elder in the Presbyterian Church, I know of plenty of Calvinists who believe they are among the elect and saved. But (although I can’t judge for sure of course) it doesn’t appear to me (either by a changed life or by an explanation of their belief system) that they have passed from death to life and exercised a personal and saving faith.

No more so than if I were preaching to the elect (not that I’d know until I saw their reaction to my message).

The elect can’t respond either in their natural state.

It is certainly true that all would be saved if there were not any conditions to receiving salvation.

In the second sentence here you are conflating the doctrines of the extent of the atonement and election again.

They are not the same doctrines. They are two separate letters in T.U.L.I.P.

If you conclude He died “effectually” for only some – you would be correct.

When you say (or at least teach) that His death purchased election – you are wrong IMO. We were elect before Christ died and, indeed, elect before the foundation of the world.

He purchased full and complete salvation for all who will but believe. Election assures that some will believe.

Unlimited atonement is more glorifying and also more Biblical IMO.

I appreciate all the work that goes into posts like these. But, please, one point at a time from now on out. These take too much time and I won’t be able to respond.

P.S. Thinking through limited atonement again has reinforced what I have felt for a long time dating back to when i myself taught from the T.U.L.I.P. acronym.

"Limited atonement" is at best redundant when presented to Reformed folks who believe the other points - like me. Witness your tendency to conflate limited atonement with election in our last posts.

At worst it is highly offensive when presented to Arminians. One can never realistically expect them to look objectively at the other 4 points when this middle one is anywhere in sight.

We are not that far apart.

I am also a 5-pointer.

Like I said, I have found John Gill to be very useful. But even I admit that is some places of his "Exposition of the Entire Bible" I have found places I disagree with him.

But one of his absolute best works are:

"Body of Doctrinal Divinity", "Body of Practical Divinity" and most especially "The Cause of God and Truth".

Its kind of hard to explain a paradox to some people. Like how Christ can die for the sins of all men, (i.e. universal offer of salvation) and yet only the elect come to faith. (Limited Atonement)

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[shakewell]

Its kind of hard to explain a paradox to some people.

Especially to the people who can see that the so called "paradox" is nothing more than a human contradiction.

 

[Steve Petersen]

"First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time " (1 Timothy 2:1-6)

Paul here very clearly says that Jesus Christ's Death, is "a Ransom for ALL".

I am well aware of the use of "all" and "world", etc, where there are cases the words do not mean "every", and must be taken it its context. As it does in John 12:19, where we read that "the world" had gone after Jesus, which cannot be understood as the "whole human race", but a "large number".

However, in the passage from First Timothy, it is very clear who the "all" for whom Jesus is a "Ransom". Paul urges us to pray for "ALL our leaders", and "ALL in authority", which can only mean "every single person", as rulers of countries, and governments, and those in any authority. Paul then says, "it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires ALL people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth", which must include the ALL "rulers" and "those in authority", everywhere in the world. It is these same "ALL" that he goes on to say, that Jesus was a "Ransom" for their sins. There is no way, without twisting what is said, that anyone can conclude from the us of ALL here, that Paul was only speaking of "elect" leaders. He does not use this word here. The ALL can only refer to the "entire human" race, which includes those as leaders and in authority, throughout the entire world.

The only people who will argue against this, are the sad Calvinists, who, rather than admit that their "theology" is flawed, and not in the Bible, will try to twist the plain meaning of what this passage teaches.

There is another similar passage with Paul, which will further show his desire for the salvation for "everyone without exception".

"King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know that you believe.” And Agrippa said to Paul, “In a short time would you persuade me to be a Christian?”And Paul said, “Whether short or long, I would to God that not only you but also ALL who hear me this day might become such as I am—except for these chains.” (Acts 26:27-29)

Paul is here witnessing to king Agrippa, who said that Paul was trying to "make him a Christian". Paul replies, that it was his desire (and not doubt, God's), that not only the king became a believer in Jesus Christ, but ALL who where in the king's palace that day! except his chains. It is very clear to anyone who is of an honest mind, and with no preconceived doctrines, that Paul meant just that. EVERY single person who was there that day, and heard his preaching, he wanted to become followers of the Lord Jesus Christ! It would be forcing the meaning of the passage, to assume that only those who were "elect" were present at this time! No doubt some would be deluded to think so!!!

The Christian world has had at least five theories of salvation:

Salvation in Christianity - Wikipedia

 

[Marvin Knox]

We are not that far apart.
I am also a 5-pointer.

I agree. 4 out of 5 ain't bad.

But one of his absolute best works are:
"Body of Doctrinal Divinity", "Body of Practical Divinity" and most especially "The Cause of God and Truth".

I'll try to give them a once over.

Its kind of hard to explain a paradox to some people.

The Word of God is full of them and I believe it's so that those who are willing to study humbly will arrive at an understanding and those who will not will not understand no matter how long they look at a paradox.

Like how Christ can die for the sins of all men, (i.e. universal offer of salvation) and yet only the elect come to faith. (Limited Atonement)

I've heard both explained pretty well. If I do say so myself I believe I have explained it pretty well over the years in my Reformed doctrine classes.

Election pretty much is what it is IMO. God visits some in a special way (witness Paul - and yours truly for instance) and passes others by and leaves them in their sins for which they will be rightly judged.

The other idea requires a bit more nuance. But for those who understand 4 out of the 5 points it shouldn't be difficult.

IMO Christ died for the sins of every man. Even so - everyone is unsaved even after the work of Christ at Calvary. That includes the elect as well as the reprobate. That status only changes when we are justified by faith. Creating that faith in any person who is totally depraved, as it were, is where the election and the various acts of God associated with it come into play.

As I see it - the heartfelt offer of salvation by God to every man can only be genuine if Christ's suffering was for the sins of every man. If that isn't true, IMO, that offer becomes a bit of a sham.

That seems to be the opinion of most evangelical Christians. That includes 4-pointers like myself and all out and out non-Reformed evangelicals as well.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Especially to the people who can see that the so called "paradox" is nothing more than a human contradiction.

A paradox is a "seeming" contradiction.

The trick for us humans is to ascertain the mind of Christ for the solution to the paradox.

What makes that impossible for some is that they reject the paradox and simply pronounce it a contradiction. Then they choose the side of the paradox they are most comfortable with and dig in. That person will find himself with no answer and indeed may find himself in error even though he would tell you otherwise.

No doubt there has to be differences among us so that those who are approved will become evident among us".

The path to being approved by God (like the Bereans) is to try to believe all the scriptures say and not choose sides too quickly.

To those who have - more will be given. But to him who has not - even what he thinks he has will be taken away.

 

[DeaconDean]

Especially to the people who can see that the so called "paradox" is nothing more than a human contradiction.

Hahaha

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[shakewell]

A paradox is a "seeming" contradiction.

The trick for us humans is to ascertain the mind of Christ for the solution to the paradox.

What makes that impossible for some is that they reject the paradox and simply pronounce it a contradiction. Then they choose the side of the paradox they are most comfortable with and dig in. That person will find himself with no answer and indeed may find himself in error even though he would tell you otherwise.

No doubt there has to be differences among us so that those who are approved will become evident among us".

The path to being approved by God (like the Bereans) is to try to believe all the scriptures say and not choose sides too quickly.

To those who have - more will be given. But to him who has not - even what he thinks he has will be taken away.

Marvin,
When a person says that "all" in 1 Tim 2:6 means "every person" and then turns around and says that "all" in 1 Tim 2:6 means "all sorts/types of men"; that's a human contradiction, not a "mind of Christ" paradox.

The debt He paid, the ransom He paid, is for every person ...

"all men" in verse 4 and "all" in verse 6 (our text) are all sorts of men- God wills that every kind of man be saved and therefore Christ died for every type of man.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Marvin,
When a person says that "all" in 1 Tim 2:6 means "every person" and then turns around and says that "all" in 1 Tim 2:6 means "all sorts/types of men"; that's a human contradiction, not a "mind of Christ" paradox.

I agree with you - if a person used those exact words concerning that exact verse.

But the first quote from DeaconDean concerns verse 4 and the second quote concerns verse 6.

The two quotes by DeaconDean are not necessary contradictory as shown.

Those who point out that "all" does not always mean "all" - and then apply it to 1 Timothy 2:4 and 1 Timothy 2:6 are treating those two verses as a paradox.

I say that even though I do not subscribe to so called limited atonement in the way most 5-pointers use the term.

IMO - there are sets of verses which would be contradictory if used in an argument for limited atonement. But they are not those two verses as quoted.

 

[shakewell]

I agree with you - if a person used those exact words concerning that exact verse.

But the first quote from DeaconDean concerns verse 4 and the second quote concerns verse 6.

The two quotes by DeaconDean are not necessary contradictory as shown.

Those who point out that "all" does not always mean "all" - and then apply it to 1 Timothy 2:4 and 1 Timothy 2:6 are treating those two verses as a paradox.

I say that even though I do not subscribe to so called limited atonement in the way most 5-pointers use the term.

IMO - there are sets of verses which would be contradictory if used in an argument for limited atonement. But they are not those two verses as quoted.

Both quotes are about verse 6.
The first quote: "The debt He paid, the ransom He paid, is for every person ..." pertains to verse 6 because it mentions the ransom.
1 Timothy 2:6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
"Ransom" isn't in verse 4 so he's not referring to that verse when he says "for every person".

 

[Marvin Knox]

Both quotes are about verse 6.
The first quote: "The debt He paid, the ransom He paid, is for every person ..." pertains to verse 6 because it mentions the ransom.
1 Timothy 2:6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
"Ransom" isn't in verse 4 so he's not referring to that verse when he says "for every person".

I stand corrected.

I was giving him the benefit of the doubt. But, since he mentioned the ransom from verse 6, what he said does seem to be an actual contradiction and not a paradoxical doctrine.

One of the reasons I am not a believer in limited atonement is because it is not logical on several fronts.

 

[DeaconDean]

When a person says that "all" in 1 Tim 2:6 means "every person" and then turns around and says that "all" in 1 Tim 2:6 means "all sorts/types of men"; that's a human contradiction, not a "mind of Christ" paradox.

Its hard to explain the concept of election with a person who constantly nit-picks.

Its hard to say/explain how something can be done for all mankind, and yet not all mankind will take advantage of it.

Lets take another example.

In the Greek, the word "eis" can be rendered in about 15 different ways.

Example:

"ὑμῖν γάρ ἐστιν ἡ ἐπαγγελία καὶ τοῖς τέκνοις ὑμῶν καὶ πᾶσιν τοῖς εἰς μακρὰν ὅσους ἂν προσκαλέσηται κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν." -Acts 2:38 (GNT)

"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." -Acts 2:38 (KJV)

"ἄνδρες Νινευῖται ἀναστήσονται ἐν τῇ κρίσει μετὰ τῆς γενεᾶς ταύτης καὶ κατακρινοῦσιν αὐτήν: ὅτι μετενόησαν εἰς τὸ κήρυγμα Ἰωνᾶ, καὶ ἰδοὺ πλεῖον Ἰωνᾶ ὧδε. " Mt. 12:41 (GNT)

"The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here." -Mt. 12:41 (KJV)

Same Greek word, yet translated two different ways with two different meanings.

In the Greek, the word agape, has seven different meanings.

To know which one applies in any case, you have to look and study.

There are some 47 references to the "world" in the Old Testament. WHen it was used, did it literally mean the "whole entire world"? No.

"Hear this, all ye people; give ear, all ye inhabitants of the world:" -Psa. 49:1 (KJV)

How were the Latin people, Asian people, the Indians, etc, going to "hear" at that time. Because to David, the Psalmist, the "world" was the Middle East.

Furthermore, to strengthen what I said, another classic example is Abraham. Israel came through Isaac. But yet God said that though Abraham all people would be blessed. Which shows "all sorts/types of men".

Now you can disagree all you want. You can nit-pick anything I post.

But you absolutely cannot nit-pick with the scriptures I posted.

"Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many." Mt. 20:28 (KJV)

"For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many." -Mk. 10:48 (KJV)

That is why I can say the debt has been paid, the offer is open to "all". But not "all" will take advantage of it.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

One of the reasons I am not a believer in limited atonement is because it is not logical on several fronts.

From: gotquestions.org

"Question: "Is the atonement of Christ unlimited?"

Answer: The Bible has much to say on the atonement of Christ. The question is whether His sacrifice provided limited or unlimited atonement. The word atonement means “satisfaction or reparation for a wrong or injury; amends.” The doctrine of unlimited atonement states that Christ died for all people, whether or not they would ever believe in Him. When applied to Jesus’ finished work on the cross, atonement concerns the reconciliation of God and humankind, as accomplished through the suffering and death of Christ. Paul highlights the atoning work of Jesus when he says, “But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him! For if, while we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!” (Romans 5:8–10).

How this reparation of wrongs or reconciliation was accomplished and what was involved in the act, has been debated by theologians for centuries. There are at least nine different positions on the atonement of Christ, ranging anywhere from the atonement being merely a positive example for us (the Moral Example theory) to its being a judicial, substitutionary act (the Penal Substitution theory).

But perhaps the most controversial debate concerning the atonement of Jesus centers on what is referred to as “limited” or “definite” atonement. One theological camp (comprised primarily of those holding to Arminianism and Wesleyanism) believes that Christ died on the cross for everyone who will ever live. The other theological camp—made up of Reformed thinkers, who are often called “Calvinists” after the Reformer John Calvin—say that Jesus only died for those whom the Father chose from the foundation of the world to be saved. This group of redeemed individuals is often referred to as the “elect” or the “chosen” of God. Which position is correct? Did Jesus die for everyone in the world or only a select group of individuals?

Is Everyone Going to be Saved?
In examining this issue, the first question to ask is this: is everyone going to be saved through the atoning work of Christ? Those holding to a position called universalism say “yes.” The universalists argue that, because Christ died for everyone and all the sins of humanity were laid on/punished in Christ, everyone will spend eternity with God.

Scripture, however, stands in opposition to such teaching (which can be traced back to a teacher named Laelius Socinus in the 16th century). The Bible makes it abundantly clear that many people will be lost, with just a few verses highlighting this fact following:

• “Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt” (Daniel 12:2)
• “Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it” (Matthew 7:13–14)
• “Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness’” (Matthew 7:22–23)
• “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life” (Matthew 25:46)
• “They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might” (2 Thessalonians 1:9)
• “Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire” (Revelation 20:15)

Since not everyone will be saved, there is one inescapable fact to understand: the atonement of Christ is limited. If it isn’t, then universalism must be true, and yet Scripture clearly teaches that not everyone is going to be saved. So, unless one is a universalist and can defeat the biblical evidence above, then one must hold to some form of limited atonement.

How, Then, Is the Atonement Limited?
The next important question to examine is this: if the atonement is limited (and it is), how is it limited? Jesus’ famous statement in John 3:16 provides the answer: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” In this passage, the necessary condition that limits the atonement is found: “whosoever believes” (literally in the Greek: “all the believing ones”). In other words, the atonement is limited to those who believe and only those who believe.

Who Limits the Atonement?
Both theological camps previously mentioned will not argue this point – the atonement of Christ is limited to those who believe. The disagreement occurs over the next question that arises: who limits the atonement—God or man? Calvinists/Reformed thinkers maintain that God limits the atonement by choosing those whom He will save, and thus God only placed on Christ the sins of those He had chosen for salvation. The Arminian/Wesleyan position states that God does not limit the reparation of Christ, but instead it is humanity that limits the atonement by freely choosing to accept or reject the offer that God makes to them for salvation.

A common way for the Arminian/Wesleyan theologians to state their position is that the atonement is unlimited in its invitation but limited in its application. God offers the invitation to all; however, only those who respond in faith to the gospel message have the work of the atonement applied to their spiritual condition.

To support the position that humanity, and not God, limits the atonement, the Arminian/Wesleyan lists a number of Scripture verses, including the following:

• “He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:2, emphasis added)
• “The next day he saw Jesus coming to him and said, ‘Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!”” (John 1:29, emphasis added)
• “I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh” (John 6:51, emphasis added)
• “And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself” (John 12:32, emphasis added)
• “For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time” (1 Timothy 2:5–6, emphasis added)
• “But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone” (Hebrews 2:9, emphasis added)
• “But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves” (2 Peter 2:1, emphasis added)

In addition to the biblical references above, the Arminian/Wesleyan theologian also provides a number of logical arguments to support their case. The most common is that, if God is all-loving, how could Christ not die for everyone? Doesn’t God love each and every person (cf. John 3:16)? They see an atonement limited by God as a denial of the omnibenevolence of God.

Furthermore, the Arminian/Wesleyan believes that an atonement limited by God is devastating to the gospel message. How can an evangelist preach that “Christ died for you” if Christ did not indeed die for all? There is a complete lack of confidence, they say, in making the statement to any one person that Christ died for them because the evangelist has no real idea (given an atonement limited by God) if that is really the case.

Unlimited Atonement—the Conclusion
Unless one is a universalist and believes that everyone will ultimately be saved, a Christian must hold to some form of a limited atonement. The key area of disagreement is over who limits that atonement—God or man? Those wishing to hold to a God-limited atonement must answer the biblical arguments put forth by those holding to a human-limited atonement and also explain how God can be described in Scripture as being all-loving and yet not have His Son die for everyone."

I also add:

"The "limited atonement" doctrine [as well as "unlimited atonement"] is built upon a premise that lacks understanding of the two views of the Cross of Christ as regards His work; that is, propitiation and substitution. The types used on the day of atonement in Leviticus 16 are set aside in deference to a theory, a doctrine of men (be they good men or bad is not the point). On that memorable day, which occurred once a year in Israel's history, there were, among other similarities two goats--one called the Lord's lot, and the other the people's. The goat of the Lord's lot was killed and its blood taken inside of the veil by the high priest, where he sprinkled the blood once upon the mercy seat and seven times on the desert sand before it. It was there above the mercy seat that God dwelt among the people, and as they were sinners He must needs have the evidence of death presented before him--the blood was sprinkled there. This was propitiation--a satisfaction rendered to God whereby He could act in grace toward a sinful people. On the head of the other goat, the sins of the people were confessed by the high priest, and it was led into a land not inhabited, so that their sins were removed. This was substitution.

In a sense, both goats are one in the matter of sins--the one being slain and its blood presented before God, and the other bearing the sins away to be remembered no more--for without the blood of the one goat there could be no bearing away of sins on the other. Let us notice the words of another:

"There is a continual tendency in the different classes, even of believers in Christendom, to ignore one or other of these truths. Take for instance those zealous that the gospel go out to every creature. It is notorious that most of these deny God's special favor to the elect. They overlook or pare down any positive difference on God's part toward His own children. They hold that a man throughout his course may be a child of God today and not tomorrow. This destroys substitution [seen in the live goat led away]. They hold propitiation [seen in the blood of the other goat as presented before God], and there they are right, and quite justified in preaching the gospel unrestrictedly to every creature, as the Lord indeed enjoined. But how their one-sidedness enfeebles the proper portion of the saints!

"But look for a moment at the opposite side, which holds that all God has done and reveals is in view of the elect only, and that all He has wrought in Christ Jesus is in effect for the Church, and that He does not care about the world, except to judge it at the last day. This may be put rather bluntly, for I do not present such grievous narrowness toward man and dishonor of God and His Son in as polished terms as those might desire who cherish notions so unsavory and unsound. But it is true that a certain respectable class around us do see nothing but the elect as the object of God. Their doctrine supposes only the second goat, or the people's lot. They see the all-importance of substitution, but Jehovah's lot has no place as distinct.
"How came the two contending parties of religionists not to see both goats? The Word of God reveals both. Plainly there are two goats. The goat of propitiation is to provide in the fullest manner for the glory of God, even where sin is before Him. In fulfilling it, what was the consequence? Christ was forsaken of God that the believer should never be forsaken. He bore the judgment of sin that God's glory might be immutably established in righteousness. Thus grace in the freest way can and does now go out to every creature here below.
"But there is much more. Besides opening the sluices that divine love might flow out freely everywhere, we also find another line of truth altogether: the fullest and nicest care that those who are His children should be kept in peace and blessing. God took care, not only to vindicate His own glory and nature, but to give them knowledge of salvation by the remission of their sins. The sins are all out to be borne away.
"Even the type demonstrates...that we require these two distinct truths to maintain the balance of God's truth. They are admirably held together; they compose God's truth. It is quite true that in the first goat God has secured His majesty, and His righteous title to send forth His message of love to every creature. Again, in the second goat He has equally cared for the assurance of His people, that all their sins, transgressions, and iniquities, are completely borne away. How could the truth of atonement be more admirably shown by types beforehand?"

Before leaving this part of the subject, let us refer to the words of another servant of God:
"Christ is both high priest and victim, has confessed all the sins of His people as His own, and borne our sins in His own body on the tree. The two goats are but one Christ; but there is the double aspect of His sacrifice--Godward, and bearing our sins. The blood is the witness of the accomplishing of all, and He is entered in not without blood. He is the propitiation for our sins."

The error of the one-sided Calvinistic theology in the denial of propitiation in its wide scope for the whole world has necessitated a determined but futile attempt to remove or explain away every scripture which supports it. Take the verse which explains that Christ was the propitiation for our sins (I John 2:2), so that His propitiatory sacrifice furnished the righteous foundation on which our sins have been removed; it also says, "and not for ours only, but also for the...whole world." The words in the King James translation "the sins of" are definitely not in the Greek, and are shown in italics in many Bibles, thus indicating that they were added by the translators. He was not a propitiation for the sins of the whole world, but He is the propitiation for the whole world."

Source

This right here, proves my point.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

Lets go one step further.

One of the greatest chapters in the Bible regarding the Messiah, His life, and death is Isaiah 53.

Here we read:

"For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. He 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. And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand. He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors." -Isa. 53:2-12 (KJV)

Notice well what Isaiah prophesied:

"He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors." (vs. 11-12)

"Isaiah 53 is one of the greatest chapters in all of Scripture. According to The Pulpit Commentary,“Polycarp the Lysian calls this chapter ‘the golden passional of the Old Testament evangelist.’ ” Others have called it “the holy of holies of Old Testament prophecy.” J. Alec Motyer, in Isaiah, gives it the heading “The man who is God: suffering observed but misunderstood.”

To deduct from the statement “he bore the sin of many” that Christ only died for those God had elected to save, as Calvin did, ignores other parts of Scripture that testify to the fact that the Lamb of God takes away the sins of the world. Inasmuch as Jesus then and now does not make intercession for every individual, but only for those who want to be identified with Him in His death and resurrection, so the effect of His atoning death is not applied to every individual either. On the Day of Atonement, the high priest would lay the sin of all the people on the two goats that would effectuate the atonement, but in the case of an individual sinner, the person who sinned had to put his hands on the head of the sacrificial animal that took his place and confess his sins, laying them upon the victim. We read in Leviticus: “He is to lay his hand on
the head of the burnt offering, and it will be accepted on his behalf to make atonement for him.” As the old hymn writer sang: “I lay my sins on Jesus, the spotless Lamb of God. He bears them all, and frees us from the accursed load. I bring my guilt to Jesus, to wash my crimson stains while in His blood most precious, till not a spot remains.”

Alex J. Motyer, The Prophesy of Isaiah, An Introduction and Commentary, The Great Deliverance: The Work of the King, World-Wide Salvation, 52:13-55:13, Section i: Triumph of the Servant, pp. 319-320

I have this book, because it was the book we used in seminary when I took Isaiah.

Again, no matter how you slice it, no matter how much you disagree with me, the debt has been paid, but only a few will accept.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[shakewell]

Its hard to say/explain how something can be done for all mankind, and yet not all mankind will take advantage of it.

There's no need to explain. Every person I know of, including myself, who believes the ransom is for every individual understands and agrees with that statement.

In the Greek, the word "eis" can be rendered in about 15 different ways.

1 Timothy 2:6 Who gave himself a ransom for (huper) all, to be testified in due time.
The Greek word for "for" in this verse is "huper" not "eis".

That is why I can say the debt has been paid, the offer is open to "all". But not "all" will take advantage of it.

Please be clear: Do you mean that the offer is open to all types of people but not all individual people will take advantage of it? If that's what you mean then you have 2 entirely different "alls" in your statement.

Can you answer this question with a simple yes or no: Did Christ Jesus give himself a ransom for every individual of the human race?

 

[sdowney717]

There's no need to explain. Every person I know of, including myself, who believes the ransom is for every individual understands and agrees with that statement.

1 Timothy 2:6 Who gave himself a ransom for (huper) all, to be testified in due time.
The Greek word for "for" in this verse is "huper" not "eis".

Please be clear: Do you mean that the offer is open to all types of people but not all individual people will take advantage of it? If that's what you mean then you have 2 entirely different "alls" in your statement.

Can you answer this question with a simple yes or no: Did Christ Jesus give himself a ransom for every individual of the human race?

Here is information from the reformation bible study.

2:6 who gave himself as a ransom. By His death on the cross, Christ paid the price necessary to free people from their sins (Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45; Titus 2:14; 1 Pet. 1:18, 19). Thus, He is the “one mediator” (v. 5).

all. In keeping with vv. 1 and 4, this is probably a reference to all types of people. Alternately, it expresses Paul’s conviction that Christ’s death was sufficient to ransom all humanity, yet by sovereign design and effect not all are redeemed. See “Definite Redemption” at John 10:15.