Poll: Did Christ Die For All?

[Andrew]

This is an old question...and the debate goes on. But I just wanted to know how many in this forum believe that Jesus shed his blood only for some and not all men. Or, another way of putting it, he carried only the sins of some when he was crucified.

 

[Andrew]

I voted false for 4 simple reasons:
-------------------------------

There are plenty of clear-cut scripture verses that say that Christ died for "all", "our", "whole world", "every creation" etc.

Of cse, to the hyper Calvinists, words like "all" and "every" means "some". But then I'd ask: So if the Bible says "all have sinned", does it mean some have sinned?)

The Bible is also full of verses that say that ALL men have sinned. And that Christ came to die for sinners.

1Ti 1:15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

Hence, if all men have sinned, then Christ came to die for ALL men becos He came to die for sinners, which would imply all men becos all men have sinned, unless you believe only some men have sinned.

And it is interesting to note that when it comes to all men being sinners, the hyper Calvinist read "all" as "all" and do not believe that only "some" men have sinned. Or do they?

Roms 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

Why should hyper Calvinists read the first "all" as "all" but the second "all" as "some" ie there is no consistency in interpretation of "all".

If Adams sin impacted the entire human race whereas Christ atonement is limited only to some, how can Christ's work be a "much more" in every sense of the phrase, as outlined in Roms 5? How can redemption be a greater work if its impact is not as far reaching as Adam's sin's impact?

 

[Drotar]

I voted false.

The trick is in how you word the question. If you ask, "did Christ die for all?" then your answer is yes. If you ask, "Did Christ die intending to save all?" then many here and myself would say no.

His death did more than atone for sin. It wiped out the penalty for original sin (universal effect) and established a New Covenant which effects all.

Since we're not on the best of terms right now, for the sake of mending broken fences I'll not ost my reasons. I don't know if you intended this to be a place of discussion and Scripture, but if I posted my reasons, it would porbably do nothing but harm here.

If simply asked Did Christ die for all, then I have to say yes. Which aspect of His death you want to discuss is the distinguishing factor here. TTYL Jesus loves you!

 

[Andrew]

If you ask, "Did Christ die intending to save all?" then many here and myself would say no.

If Christ and the Father did not intend to save all when He came to this world and went to the cross, why would he bear the sins of every man? Unless of cse you do not believe that he bore every man's sins.

I would, however, agree with you if you said that Christ knew beforehand that not all men would accept Him as Saviour, hence he knew that not all men would be saved. But that is not the question here.

Again, I wld point to 1 Tim 1:15 -- Christ came to save sinners. So, how can God's salvation plan cater to only a portion of sinners?

If all men are sinners (which I believe you believe), and if Christ came for sinners, then he came for all. And if he came for all, then he intended to save all. ie the salvation provision is for all, covers all.

add to that, the main reason why people end up in hell is for the unforgivable sin of the rejection of the Christ/Messiah. But how can these unsaved be put to hell if there was never any provision for their salvation in the first place? How can God send a person to hell for rejecting the offer of grace when it was never offered to him in the first place?

Re 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

 

[Andrew]

8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

Look at the last verse. It is hard to believe that "whole" does not mean "whole" but "some", and that "world" does not mean "the world" but "only some parts of the world".

 

[Drotar]

If Christ and the Father did not intend to save all when He came to this world and went to the cross, why would he bear the sins of every man? Unless of cse you do not believe that he bore every man's sins.

I would, however, agree with you if you said that Christ knew beforehand that not all men would accept Him as Saviour, hence he knew that not all men would be saved. But that is not the question here.

Again, I wld point to 1 Tim 1:15 -- Christ came to save sinners. So, how can God's salvation plan cater to only a portion of sinners?

If all men are sinners (which I believe you believe), and if Christ came for sinners, then he came for all. And if he came for all, then he intended to save all. ie the salvation provision is for all, covers all.

add to that, the main reason why people end up in hell is for the unforgivable sin of the rejection of the Christ/Messiah. But how can these unsaved be put to hell if there was never any provision for their salvation in the first place? How can God send a person to hell for rejecting the offer of grace when it was never offered to him in the first place?

Re 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

I guess taht you would like to discuss this then. I promise not to let my emotions get the best of me again. I'll keep cool this time.


He didn't bear the sins of every man and woman. Because if He did, then all would be counted righteous in Christ.

The problem: If Christ bore the sins of, atoned for the sins of, and died for the sins of all people, then all are saved, becasueall have had the penalty for their sins atoned for. If He died for some, then those are saved. If He died for none (which would have been perfectly just) then none would be saved. The problem is this- it would be unjust for God to impute the penalty for someone's sin twice- first to the substitute and then to the sinner him or herself. If the sbustitute successfully atoned for the sins, then we won't pay the penalty for them. If He took the penalty for all, it would be UNJUST for God to punish people on the basis of their sin. God cannot justly punish the substitute for everybody's sins, and then punish some of the sinner's with the sin that already been paid for. Y'all believe that Christ dpaid the price with His blood for sin right? The question is this: Whom did He die intending to save? If all, then none can be charged with their sin. If none, then all must be. If some, then some are forgiven and saved.

If Christ died for somebody's sins, then they're forgiven! If the substitute paid the ransom price, then the sinner himself will not and cannot be justly required to pay it again.

Here's a question: God has perfect knowledge right? Then why would He send Christ to die for people whom He knew wouldn't accept Him anyways? Why would He send Jesus to atone for the sins and make salvation possible, to specific people whom He knew well ahead of time wouldn't accept it anyways? It would be a waste of blood.

Because salvation is not man's natural birthright. When all deserve hell, it's a miralce if SOME receive life. I hate to say this, but God is not obligated to save ANYBODY. If He died in the place of ONE so that just ONE could be saved, how great a God is He? But He has chosen to save a multitude. Our response is that He is heartless, for not saving all. He isn't obligated to die in the place of ANYBODY. If He died in the place of one, some, all, or many, it's a marvel of grace.

Christ did die for sinners. All men are sinners. But Christ did not die intending to save ALL sinners. The people that Christ saved were fallen men. Angels are sinners. Christ did not die for fallen angels. Nor did He die for all sinners of men. It is the TYPE of people that Christ died for. Saying that Christ died for sinners has nothing to do with quantity.

God doesn't punish people based on their natural ability. He is just and punishes based on the Law. As Robert Reymond wrote, before the Fall, man had both the ability and the obligation to obey. As a result of the Fall, man retained the former and lost the latter. If God dealt with man according to his ability, he would have to reduce his moral demands to the vanishing point. As a result of a sin nature, and a free will to act on that nature, we are totally depraved men. Now, that's where you're wrong, may I respectfully disagree. ALL are offered salvation. But the gospel falls on deaf ears. Unless God frees the nature and convicts and converts men will not and thus cannot choose to accept Christ and repent. For how can men turn and repent of that which they love, unless God acts in a person's heart? Truly, all who believe are saved. But only those who are touched by God will believe and repent. Unless God first does something to get over the barrier of that stubborn sinful heart, men will not and thus cannot choose to acept Christ. God directly purposes our salvaiton. We are saved because He is effiaciously gracious.

That verse, of how hell is for the unbelieving... Everyone was born the unbelieving. It was God's acting that led us to convert. Those who don't believe and thus sentence thmselves to hell, do so because God left their very natures unchanged.

Lorraine Boettner once asked, if a kind-hearted gentleman once offered to pay the price required for two men to go free, would that render the execution of the third unjust? TTYL Jesus loves you! (was that post a little more cordial?)

 

[Preachers12]

Peace be with you.

Semantics aside, Jesus died to forgive all sins, past, present and future. But, I believe (Catholics teach) we must apply His death to benefit from His sacrifice (that may be confusing to non-Catholics, but this is probably not the place to discuss it).

God Bless and thanks for the poll!

 

[ZiSunka]

What an akward way to word your question. "Jesus DID NOT shed his blood for all men."

Christ DID shed his blood for every human, no exceptions.

 

[CCWoody]

This is an old question...and the debate goes on. But I just wanted to know how many in this forum believe that Jesus shed his blood only for some and not all men. Or, another way of putting it, he carried only the sins of some when he was crucified.

Hey, Andrew, I find your poll question quite funny: "Jesus DID NOT shed his blood for all men."

Why don't we just simply accept the very words of Christ's own mouth as the authoritative end of the debate:

• Matthew 26:28
  For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Though that should promply end any debate, I'm sure that it will not. Call me prophetic.

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.

 

[CCWoody]

I voted false for 4 simple reasons:
-------------------------------

• Matthew 26:28
  For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Everyone gets a chance to try and twist this scripture.

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.

 

[CCWoody]

I voted false.

• Matthew 26:28
  For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Everyone gets a chance at this.

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.

 

[Road Runner]

• Matthew 26:28
  For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Everyone gets a chance to try and twist this scripture.

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.

Woody,

put that verse with the others mentioned (that Christ died for all sinners) and its easy to see that in this verse many means all.

 

[The Midge]

• Matthew 26:28
  For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Everyone gets a chance to try and twist this scripture.

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Christ died for all sinners that is to say he gives everyone chance to be saved.

Many but not all accept. How many do you think is many?

 

[Road Runner]

There are many people in the world - that is, there is more than one, more than a few. All (of the many) may be saved through Christ's death on the cross

 

[CCWoody]

Woody,

.... many means all.

Thanks for coming out to play. No, in this verse, many does not mean all. There is absolutely no support for this. Zero, nada, zilch! If we were meant to understand this as all, then the scripture would clearly read "all" and not "many". They are 2 different greek words with 2 different meanings. And polus (many) no more means all than pas (all or all manner of) means cup.

I will freely accept verse for verse (one at a time mind you) and give you a new understanding of the true meaning of that verse. Therefore, if Andrew wishes to give me a verse to address among the several he has already posted, I'll freely address it.

BTW, there is, in my years of studying scriptures only one verse which gives me any pause at all with regard to the nature of the Atonement being unlimited. It will be interesting to see who can name this verse first.

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.

 

[CCWoody]

I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Christ died for all sinners that is to say he gives everyone chance to be saved.

Many but not all accept. How many do you think is many?

Here's how we need to address this. You have made a proposition: Christ died for all sinners. You need to backup your propositions with scripture cites. This way, I know exactly what verses you are using to base your theology.

I picked the one I did because of the exact wording of Andrew's poll. "This is My Blood... which is shed for many." If the Lord had intended to say "all" He would have done son. If He had intended to say "the many who are in the world" (Roadrunner's false contention) He would have done so. He did not.

The Lord did say "This is My Blood... which is shed for many." This should end the debate, all fanciful notions that He shed His blood with the expressed intent and purpose of placing all of mankind under the New Covenant. Alas, people are so loath to simply accept what cannot have any other meaning.

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.

 

[Road Runner]

Woody,

You have me intriuged [sic?], who are the many?

 

[ZiSunka]

many:

Main Entry: many
Pronunciation: 'me-nE
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): more /'mOr, 'mor/; most /'mOst/
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English manig; akin to Old High German manag many, Old Church Slavonic munogu much
Date: before 12th century
1 : consisting of or amounting to a large but indefinite number <worked for many years>
2 : being one of a large but indefinite number <many a man> <many another student>
- as many : the same in number <saw three plays in as many days>

 

[Road Runner]

There are many people in the world - that is, there is more than one, more than a few. All (of the many) may be saved through Christ's death on the cross

Woody,

Perhaps I should have made this a bit clearer - you have said that many is not all - but how do you know this? who are the many?

 

[CCWoody]

There are many people in the world - that is, there is more than one, more than a few. All (of the many) may be saved through Christ's death on the cross

Well, sure! There is not a single person who will be saved by any means other than the Propitiation of Christ. This is the true meaning of 1 John 2:2. He is the actual covering and remitting of our sins. But, not only that, He Himself is the means by which any man's sins will be covered and remitted.

But, it does not automically follow that as there will be no man who comes to the Father by any means other than Christ, that Christ died with the expressed will and design to bring all men to the Father.

• "This is My Blood... which is shed for many."

Christ came to redeem His people!!! Just exactly as we are told in the scriptures:

• And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name JESUS, for He will save His people from their sins.~ Matthew 1 (from memory)

Read it! Believe it!

Christ died for the sheep, not the goats!!! Just exactly as we are told in the scriptures:

• "I am the Good Shepherd! The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep." ~ John 10 (from memory)

Read it! Believe it!

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.