Misconceptions about Jesus

[Orange_County_Chopper]

Want to discuss the Reformed doctrine of Limited Atonement.


edited for clarification.

 

[Elderone]

These two verses say it all:

Mat_26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Heb_9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

 

[JustAsIam77]

I've had this discussion before and even some of my Reformed friends take issue with my conclusions, Christs sacrifice was sufficient to save all mankind but only efficient to save His elect. Before responding please take the time to understand the difference.

 

[gmm4j]

Elderone,

In Hebrews 2:10 it says,

In bringing many sons to glory, it was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should make the author of their salvation perfect through suffering.

If your reasoning regarding “many” is correct, because it only says many sons and not all sons, this verse must mean that God doesn’t bring all sons to glory. Right? The fact is, all are many and many can be all!

The rest of my response is posted in Limited Provision? under Debate a Calvinist. http://www.christianforums.com/t7682328-new/

 

[JM]

When we read about the propitiation of Christ for sinners it is always in a limited sense, for many and for His people. The Bible clearly links love with action so if God loves all people and wants to save all people you would have to say that God's love lacks (efficient) action.

 

[JM]

I would say the biggest misconception of Jesus is that He is a manifestation of God the Father and not a separate person within the Godhead.

 

[Orange_County_Chopper]

So many other Christians are quick to say that Jesus died for the sins of everyone.

 

[Orange_County_Chopper]

I've had this discussion before and even some of my Reformed friends take issue with my conclusions, Christs sacrifice was sufficient to save all mankind but only efficient to save His elect. Before responding please take the time to understand the difference.

Yes.

 

[Orange_County_Chopper]

When we read about the propitiation of Christ for sinners it is always in a limited sense, for many and for His people.

Yes.

 

[twin1954]

I've had this discussion before and even some of my Reformed friends take issue with my conclusions, Christs sacrifice was sufficient to save all mankind but only efficient to save His elect. Before responding please take the time to understand the difference.

I fully understand the difference as I have dealt with this suggestion before. The problem with it is it is in essense a compromise in order to soften the truth for those who oppose it. Could Christ have redeemed all of mankind if He intended to? Sure, without a doubt Hs person and work was sufficient to accomplish that. But it is only hypothetical philosophical conjecture. God does what He intends to do period. The death of Christ was sufficient and efficient to accomplish that which God intended which was the everlasting salvation of His chosen people. To go beyond that is reaching farther than the Scriptures teach. It is but a theological exercise that glorifies the intellect but not God.

 

[Orange_County_Chopper]

If He intended for everyone to be saved, they would be saved, the fact that they aren't and will not be, that person has to admit that their God failed.

 

[Forge3]

I've had this discussion before and even some of my Reformed friends take issue with my conclusions, Christs sacrifice was sufficient to save all mankind but only efficient to save His elect. Before responding please take the time to understand the difference.

Would somebody please help me understand this point? I really want to understand this theological standpoint.

 

[twin1954]

Would somebody please help me understand this point? I really want to understand this theological standpoint.

See post #18.

 

[JM]

<edit>

If I gave the impression that God "hates most" of the world I did not mean to. I don't know how many, by the grace, God will save. I tend to be more optimistic. The atonement is limited in scoop but not power to save effectually and I would argue you have a limited view of the atonement in terms of power to save. As for God loving everyone all the time...it can't be true or everyone would be saved. It makes little sense to use the preaching of the Gospel as a means to call everyone to salvation when not everyone in history has heard the Gospel. It makes no sense.

 

[Forge3]

See post #18.

Ok. Thanks for your hospitality. It gives me something to ponder upon; like I don't have enough things I am pondering on now lol. Oh well one more thing for the mental hopper

 

[JM]

But it is only hypothetical philosophical conjecture. God does what He intends to do period.

That's the way I see it. Amyraldism is the term used to describe the philosophical view.

The death of Christ was sufficient and efficient to accomplish that which God intended...

Absolutely.

 

[gmm4j]

Twin1954 you said,

Remember which room you are in. Please confine yourself to the debate a Calvinist room if you want to argue your appeals to emotion.

I&#8217;ll be good. I posted my response to you in Limited Provision? in Debate with a Calvinist.


http://www.christianforums.com/t7682328-2/

 

[gmm4j]

JM and OC Chopper,

I would argue you have a limited view of the atonement in terms of power to save. As for God loving everyone all the time...it can't be true or everyone would be saved. It makes little sense to use the preaching of the Gospel as a means to call everyone to salvation when not everyone in history has heard the Gospel. It makes no sense. -JM

If He intended for everyone to be saved, they would be saved, the fact that they aren't and will not be, that person has to admit that their God failed. - Chopper

I would love to discuss these thoughts with you, but you have shut me down here. So, if you would like to discuss one click away in "Debate with a Calvinist", come on over.

 

[twin1954]

Twin1954 you said,

Remember which room you are in. Please confine yourself to the debate a Calvinist room if you want to argue your appeals to emotion.

I’ll be good. I posted my response to you in Limited Provision? in Debate with a Calvinist.


http://www.christianforums.com/t7682328-2/

See my response in that thread.

 

[Look Up]

[Misconceptions about Jesus] One of the biggest ones being that Jesus died on the cross for everyone's sins. Discuss.

I need to edit this to clarify. It isn't my intent to debate this, there is a forum for that, but to discuss amongst Reformed brothers and sisters the Reformed view.

I am still unclear as to your intention. Apparently and largely contrary to the direction of posts so far and so far as I know, your OP seems to ask posters to suggest errors of practice that have arisen in the church (broadly speaking) or outside it from the doctrine that "Jesus died on the cross for everyone's sins."

But your subsequent responses make me wonder (and the time it is taking me to write this post may mean I miss some of your remarks before I submit this post), and you do say you "need to edit this to clarify," presumably a stage you will reach in part after culling ideas from posters.

If I am on track though, I am not sure how I can best offer suggestion, at least suggestion that is not immediately obvious.

I. But to begin with the obvious (in case it isn't or isn't for some), I think the doctrinal error in question ("Jesus died on the cross for everyone's sins") has led to the propagation (for instance in evangelization of nonbelievers) of some wrong views of God.

This may I think more easily be seen when framed in terms of the love of God for sinners, e.g. some logical argument proceeding to the effect (1) Jesus died for all sinners, therefore Jesus died for you (non-believing recipient of the ostensible gospel message), (2) therefore Jesus loves you (non-believer again) in particular.

Of course from a Calvinist perspective, the love of God for the particular non-believer in question may be true (the non-believer may be of the elect who will later be converted to Jesus and have faith in Him alone for justification, and so on).

Note that in this context, the love of God is particularly equated with the mercy of God for select sinners based on Jesus' propitiation for sin on the cross. Other definitions of the love of God for sinners may be true from a Calvinist perspective (sending rain on the just and the unjust, for example). And such clarification of definition often is not offered in my experience.

But what if the non-believer in question is not the object of God's special love or rather mercy in Jesus? For such a non-believer (bound in sin and darkness), the love-of-God claim may come off as disingenuous or as a flat contradiction of fact as observed by the non-believer: My mother died when I was seven; I lost three jobs; politics stinks; there's too much war in the world and so on the list could go. God, the non-believer here may conclude, must be impotent or have favorites or be mentally deficient or evil. And how might the Calvinist respond when a non-believer has been told God loves him/her in the face of the non-believer's consequent objections of these sorts?

Granted that for the Christian, even what men mean for evil God means for our good, but that is a conclusion based on faith in God which the non-believer does not (and if among the non-elect, never will) have.

Or the love-of-God claim can create a false sense of security. Jesus died for everybody's sins; therefore He died for mine, and so I can live like the devil as I please and God will still forgive me. God is my mercy Servant.

On the other hand, non-believers may not conclude from "Jesus died on the cross for everyone's sins" any such unfortunate conclusion, logically or not. Remember also that false extensions from Calvinist theology have also been drawn.

II. For the believer then, what have been the consequences of "Jesus died on the cross for everyone's sins"? Among Martin Luther's disciples on the matter of justification by faith alone, faith alone then becomes the crux, and the ability to believe at least of great perceived importance in evangelization, for if the cross did not in itself effect the salvation of the elect (Christ died for all, but not all are saved), then something else (here faith) must be added to make salvation efficacious (as if Christ did not die for the sin of unbelief).

A certain human power to believe independent of God's sovereignty or Jesus' death is at least implicit.

Or in other matters, Jesus is perceived as loving all enemies of the church and advocates of the lawlessness (law here stemming from Christ and consistent with Moses), though for the Calvinist the love of God for any particular sinner may be uncertain at least for the time being. But where the difference becomes important in practice may be limited--as in actual battle, perhaps, or as a member of a jury, and even then I am uncertain. It would seem that the Calvinist hand would be the more strengthened when called by office or circumstance to execute justice against violation of ethical principle where immediate or decisive action is required (though this may not always be true on various grounds).

Theology may encourage a tendency in a person without necessarily causing a deduction or (by itself) action.

Probably prayer is affected too, though sometimes prayers are more Calvinist than the professions of those who pray (or so J. I. Packer once observed).

Well, there is a preliminary stab, if not into the dark then in a bit of a fog. Perhaps we can clarify on the rejoinders. Or maybe I have written something to stimulate someone's thinking; I am fairly confident I have missed some thing or things fundamental and obvious, though there are varied directions the "discussion" could go (such as with respect to theological method).