One Died For All

[Mark Quayle]

I included v.15 in my next post, v.14.

2 Corinthians 5:
14 For the love of Christ compels us, because we judge thus: that if One died for all,
then all died;
15 and He died for all, that those who live should live no longer for themselves,
but for Him who died for them and rose again.

Seems pretty simple to me, to see that we are not all dead to sin, but only all the regenerated.

OK, I see what you are saying. But neither verse says that Christ's death makes the believer "dead to sin".

In v.14, "then all died" follows "if One died for all". So, to me, that means that because Christ did die for all, all did die (spiritually).


I don't see this idea in either verse. The words "that those who live" refers to believers.

But v.14 shows that Christ died for all because all were spiritually dead.[/QUOTE]
Would you say that the love of Christ compels the lost?

Anyhow, yes, I did include thoughts not necessarily implied in these two verses alone, that are in their larger context. These are not stand alone verses. So when he says, "...that if one died for all, then all died." he is not saying that Christ's death is the cause of the curse which is upon all mankind. I can only think he is talking about the elect being dead to sin.

(Ha, I suppose I could get clever and point out what could be considered Paul's propositional logic --that IF Christ died for absolutely everyone, then absolutely everyone died to sin (which we demonstrably have NOT everyone died to sin, so therefore, he did NOT die for all).)

 

[Noxot]

2 Corinthians 5:
14 For the love of Christ compels us, because we judge thus: that if One died for all,
then all died;
15 and He died for all, that those who live should live no longer for themselves,
but for Him who died for them and rose again.

I see this as a metaphysical truth. The one died to give birth to the all. But the all is unified in the one.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Would you say that the love of Christ compels the lost?

No, v.14 says that "Christ's love compels US", not the lost.

Anyhow, yes, I did include thoughts not necessarily implied in these two verses alone, that are in their larger context. These are not stand alone verses. So when he says, "...that if one died for all, then all died." he is not saying that Christ's death is the cause of the curse which is upon all mankind. I can only think he is talking about the elect being dead to sin.

I don't see anything that would lead to "the elect being dead to sin".

(Ha, I suppose I could get clever and point out what could be considered Paul's propositional logic --that IF Christ died for absolutely everyone, then absolutely everyone died to sin (which we demonstrably have NOT everyone died to sin, so therefore, he did NOT die for all).

The only ones who are "dead to sin" are believers because their sins have been forgiven.

I still don't see where you are getting the idea about "dead to sin". Those words don't occur in either verse.

The words "therefore all died" is a reference to spiritual death. And Christ died for everyone BECAUSE of that.

iow, He died for all so that all could be saved.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I don't see anything that would lead to "the elect being dead to sin".

In the context? In the larger context? No?

 

[FreeGrace2]

In the context? In the larger context? No?

No.

 

[Mark Quayle]

No.

The larger context is the whole of Scripture, in which is Romans 6:
"5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly also be united with him in a resurrection like his. 6 For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body ruled by sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin— 7 because anyone who has died has been set free from sin.

8 Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9 For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. 10 The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God.

11 In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus."

 

[JAL]

The difference between C's and non C's is that C's believe the atonement is made available to all but only appropriated by the elect. That is the distinction made by C's (calvinists).

How ridiculously superficial. Totally misleading. The reality is that Calvinists believe that salvation is NOT appropriable by all men and thus, ultimately, is NOT available to all. The superficial language is merely a facade to make a show/pretense of complying with the biblical availability of salvation to all men, when in fact Calvinism contradicts that universal avalailability.

Another superficial claim common among Calvinists (e.g. R.C. Sproul) is their declaration that "man is free", that is, "free to act according to nature" which, ultimately, boils down to a thinly veiled determinism and thus the (diabolically evil) double-predestination. In this Calvinistic theology, the only devil is God Himself because it is God who sovereignly foreordains/predetermines the behavior of the devil and everyone else. I simply have no words to describe the logical absurdities at issue here.

 

[Mark Quayle]

How ridiculously superficial. Totally misleading. The reality is that Calvinists believe that salvation is NOT appropriable by all men and thus, ultimately, is NOT available to all. The superficial language is merely a facade to make a show/pretense of complying with the biblical availability of salvation to all men, when in fact Calvinism contradicts that universal avalailability.

Another superficial claim common among Calvinists (e.g. R.C. Sproul) is their declaration that "man is free", that is, "free to act according to nature" which, ultimately, boils down to a thinly veiled determinism and thus the (diabolically evil) double-predestination. In this Calvinistic theology, the only devil is God Himself because it is God who sovereignly foreordains/predetermines the behavior of the devil and everyone else. I simply have no words to describe the logical absurdities at issue here.

You are right about one thing. Your logic takes what Calvinism teaches to absurd ends.

 

[JAL]

You are right about one thing. Your logic takes what Calvinism teaches to absurd ends.

That hasn't been demonstrated. Again, you're hiding behind superficial language leveraged to conceal the implications of Calvinism.

 

[Mark Quayle]

That hasn't been demonstrated. Again, you're hiding behind superficial language leveraged to conceal the implications of Calvinism.

Like I said, YOUR implications --not Calvinism's., and not logical, in the end, as each one skips logical steps, assumes untrue things, and supports self-contradictory notions, such as causation by chance. or sovereignty of the creature.

By the way, they have been demonstrated. The fact you weren't there to see it, or that you perhaps blinded yourself, doesn't negate that fact.

 

[JAL]

Like I said, YOUR implications --not Calvinism's., and not logical, in the end, as each one skips logical steps, assumes untrue things, and supports self-contradictory notions, such as causation by chance. or sovereignty of the creature.

By the way, they have been demonstrated. The fact you weren't there to see it, or that you perhaps blinded yourself, doesn't negate that fact.

Baloney. You don't believe that we have real libertarian freedom. As a Calvinist, you don't believe that we can act contrary to any of the following:
(1) God's plans
(2) God's expectations
(3) God's intentions
(4) God's foreordained design and predetermined outcome.
(5) God's foreknowledge.

That's one extreme - the puppet on a string. On the other extreme is myself who believes that, in many of our decisions, we are not completely bound by ANY of those factors. I believe in real freedom.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Baloney. You don't believe that we have real libertarian freedom. As a Calvinist, you don't believe that we can act contrary to any of the following:
(1) God's plans
(2) God's expectations
(3) God's intentions
(4) God's foreordained design and predetermined outcome.
(5) God's foreknowledge.

That's one extreme - the puppet on a string. On the other extreme is myself who believes that, in many of our decisions, we are not completely bound by ANY of those factors. I believe in real freedom.

For all your kind words, you fail to convince me.

Let's start with libertarian freedom. By libertarian freedom you apparently mean the spectrum of things that we should be able to act contrary to any and all of the things you listed. If that is the meaning of libertarian freedom, then yes, Calvinism denies we can act contrary to any of them. It does not say that we cannot act in contrariness to them, but that, MacBeth style, everything we do fits God's eternal plan perfectly.

Why you should imagine that is a problem is beyond me, but you have a lot of company. Your "libertarian freedom" then, implies that your weak god is unable to act apart from our cooperation. We must give him permission to work in us, no?

Not only is that unBiblical, but it is illogical. Where in the Bible do we find that God cannot do what he wants with his creation, and what do you do with the places that say he can? And where within logic can you find room for more than one First Cause?

 

[JAL]

editing

 

[JAL]

For all your kind words, you fail to convince me.

Let's start with libertarian freedom. By libertarian freedom you apparently mean the spectrum of things that we should be able to act contrary to any and all of the things you listed. If that is the meaning of libertarian freedom, then yes, Calvinism denies we can act contrary to any of them. It does not say that we cannot act in contrariness to them, but that, MacBeth style, everything we do fits God's eternal plan perfectly.

Exactly. Puppet on a string. You've just confirmed the five tenets that I listed. As for "contrariness", by that you mean the following. Even when the devil's behavior APPEARS to be contrary to divine intent, he is behaving EXACTLY as the divine Engineer preprogrammed him to walk (he is essentially an unwitting victim of God's evil machinations).

Why you should imagine that is a problem is beyond me, but you have a lot of company.

Please. Don't play the fool.

Your "libertarian freedom" then, implies that your weak god is unable to act apart from our cooperation. We must give him permission to work in us, no?

Inane. That's like saying God's inability to make 2 + 2 = 5 is a sign of weakness. Look, God had a couple of options - the following is Theology 101 (duh). Either:
(1) Allow some degree of human freedom.
(2) OR, exercise absolute sovereignty, preengineering man's every thought, move and intent.

You can't have both. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't make 2 + 2 = 5. That's simple logic, it is NOT a sign of weakness. Again, duh.

Not only is that unBiblical, but it is illogical. Where in the Bible do we find that God cannot do what he wants with his creation, and what do you do with the places that say he can? And where within logic can you find room for more than one First Cause?

He DID do precisely what He wanted to do with His creation. What He WANTED was option 1, so that's what He did. You're the one too weak in heart to deal with option 1, not God. So deal with it already. K?

 

[JAL]

Where in the Bible do we find that God cannot do what he wants with his creation, and what do you do with the places that say he can?

So God can do anything? He can make 2 + 2 = 5? You're not entitled to an interpretation of Scripture that leads to logical contradictions. If your reading of a passage extrapolates to double-predestination - which contradicts the assumption that ALL God's behavior is perfectly fair, kind, just, and loving - then seek another interpretation. If you can't find one, it's okay to throw your hands up in the air in frustration, but ASK FOR HELP. I've tried to help you in the past, I've tried to show you alternative readings of those verses but it became clear that you don't WANT to consider a different point of view. You've deemed yourself infallible on the so-called Calvinistic verses. Nothing I can do about it.

 

[JAL]

Your "libertarian freedom" then, implies that your weak god is unable to act apart from our cooperation. We must give him permission to work in us, no?

Let me get this straight. Allowing your bride some freedom of choice is a sign of weakness on your part? You're a "real man" if, and only if, you're a control-freak who dictates her every thought, move, and intent? And then throws her into a pit of fire as her reward for faithfully fulfilling your behests?

That's a "real man" by your definition?

 

[JAL]

And where within logic can you find room for more than one First Cause?

First cause? Since that term nowhere appears in Scripture, you can't justifiably shove it down my throat. I do admit that philosophical terms are inescapable (after all the discipline of theology is just a subcategory of philosophy) but there are two kinds of philosophy:
(1) Philosophy shown consistent internally, and consistent with the Bible.
(2) Hollow and deceptive philosophy.

You haven't shown that YOUR understanding of "First Cause" is biblical. In fact your usage of the term extrapolates to double-predestination, which CANNOT be biblical since it contradicts God's impeccable kindness.

 

[JAL]

Your "libertarian freedom" then, implies that your weak god is unable to act apart from our cooperation. We must give him permission to work in us, no?

Standard Calvinist debating tactic. My objections apply to the larger context of freedom, that is, the question as to whether Lucifer, Adam, and Eve ever had free will to begin with. Strategically Calvinists shift the debate to a narrower context - the question whether fallen man can obey - on the assumption that total depravity triumphs in this debate.
(1) It's a bit of a strawman, relative to the larger debate on freedom.
(2) Even in the narrower debate, total depravity doesn't trump. First Calvinists need to fix their self-contradictory view of regeneration - after all how does a monergistically holy heart continue to sin? Doesn't make sense. Once Calvinists admit that God can and does deal differently with different parts of the heart, free will cannot be positively ruled out. PART of the heart is depraved, but we cannot assume that ALL of it is, nor even that the depraved parts are ALWAYS depraved, consider for example 1Jn 1:9:

"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness".

What part of the heart is God purifying here? The monergistically regenerated, cleansed part? It didn't need cleansing! It was already purified! (See 2 Cor 5:17). Is He cleansing the part that is still depraved, that is, the remainder of the sinful nature? Perhaps - but all of it? Then we no longer have a sinful nature! This too contradicts Scripture!

Essentially, then, the Calvinistic arguments against free will boil down to a hermeneutically unsustainable eisegesis, conveniently ignoring all the verses that flatly contradict those assumptions.

 

[Fervent]

So, here is a use for "all" that obviously does not mean "all" in the sense that some want it to mean.

That doesn't seem to be where the misunderstanding lies. All of humanity died in Christ, in that He made the provision for all. But only those who are born anew make use of that provision, so not all are saved. The flesh is cleansed through death, what remains is spiritual birth through the Holy Spirit.

 

[Mark Quayle]

That doesn't seem to be where the misunderstanding lies. All of humanity died in Christ, in that He made the provision for all. But only those who are born anew make use of that provision, so not all are saved. The flesh is cleansed through death, what remains is spiritual birth through the Holy Spirit.

2 Corinthians 5:
14 For the love of Christ compels us, because we judge thus: that if One died for all,
then all died;
15 and He died for all, that those who live should live no longer for themselves,
but for Him who died for them and rose again.

Where does it say that all of humanity "died in Christ", and where does it say "he made the provision for them all". In the verse above, the use of "all" is to designate that there is no other way, or it is a reference to "both Jew and Gentile". Take your pick --either way, If any is to be saved, it is through Jesus Christ.

My question is this: Did Christ actually pay the sins of "all" (in which case he died in vain for most), or only of the Elect?