• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Poll: Did Christ Die For All?

Jesus DID NOT shed his blood for all men.

  • True.

  • False.

  • Not sure.


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.

CCWoody

Voted best Semper Reformada signature ~ 2007
Mar 23, 2003
6,684
249
56
Texas
Visit site
✟8,255.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Andrew said:
The majority is not always wrong either. So the "majority is not always right" argument does not prove Limited Atonement either.

The results just tell us that most here do not agree with Limited Atonement. And I am happy to know that. :clap:

Hello!!! We Calvinists neither introduced the truth by committee of the majority argument like you did, nor did we claim the "majority is not always right" argument either. I believe that my exact words were "We are particularly unimpressed with numbers. We are concerned with the TRUTH!"

Therefore, if you care to address, the Truth, I recommend you begin with this scripture:
  • This is My blood... which is shed for MANY for the remission of sins.
Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.
 
Upvote 0

Bastoune

Well-Known Member
Jul 14, 2003
1,283
47
51
New York, NY, USA
✟1,694.00
Faith
Catholic
SoldierofChrist said:
Just out of curiousity, where does Augustine state that he believes in this doctrines that you claim him to?

I have all Augie's works at home! Glad you asked! :D These are just a few excerpts, not exhaustive.


Mary:
"Our Lord . . . was not averse to males, for he took the form of a male, nor to females, for of a female he was born. Besides, there is a great mystery here: that just as death comes to us through a woman, life is born to us through a woman; that the devil, defeated, would be tormented by each nature, feminine and masculine, as he had taken delight in the defection of both" (Christian Combat 22:24 [A.D. 396]).

"That one woman is both mother and virgin, not in spirit only but even in body. In spirit she is mother, not of our head, who is our Savior himself—of whom all, even she herself, are rightly called children of the bridegroom—but plainly she is the mother of us who are his members, because by love she has cooperated so that the faithful, who are the members of that head, might be born in the Church. In body, indeed, she is the Mother of that very head" (Holy Virginity 6:6 [A.D. 401]).

"Having excepted the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom, on account of the honor of the Lord, I wish to have absolutely no question when treating of sins—for how do we know what abundance of grace for the total overcoming of sin was conferred upon her, who merited to conceive and bear him in whom there was no sin?—so, I say, with the exception of the Virgin, if we could have gathered together all those holy men and women, when they were living here, and had asked them whether they were without sin, what do we suppose would have been their answer?" (Nature and Grace 36:42 [A.D. 415]).

Mary being ever-Virgin:

"In being born of a Virgin who chose to remain a Virgin even before she knew who was to be born of her, Christ wanted to approve virginity rather than to impose it. And he wanted virginity to be of free choice even in that woman in whom he took upon himself the form of a slave" (Holy Virginity 4:4 [A.D. 401]).

"It was not the visible sun, but its invisible Creator who consecrated this day for us, when the Virgin Mother, fertile of womb and integral in her virginity, brought him forth, made visible for us, by whom, when he was invisible, she too was created. A Virgin conceiving, a Virgin bearing, a Virgin pregnant, a Virgin bringing forth, a Virgin perpetual. Why do you wonder at this, O man?" (Sermons 186:1 [A.D. 411]).

"Heretics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband" (Heresies 56 [A.D. 428]).

The Real Presence:
"Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands" (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).

"I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ" (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).

"What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction" (ibid., 272).

Purgatory:

"There is an ecclesiastical discipline, as the faithful know, when the names of the martyrs are read aloud in that place at the altar of God, where prayer is not offered for them. Prayer, however, is offered for other dead who are remembered. It is wrong to pray for a martyr, to whose prayers we ought ourselves be commended" (Sermons 159:1 [A.D. 411]).

"But by the prayers of the holy Church, and by the salvific sacrifice, and by the alms which are given for their spirits, there is no doubt that the dead are aided, that the Lord might deal more mercifully with them than their sins would deserve. The whole Church observes this practice which was handed down by the Fathers: that it prays for those who have died in the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, when they are commemorated in their own place in the sacrifice itself; and the sacrifice is offered also in memory of them, on their behalf. If, then, works of mercy are celebrated for the sake of those who are being remembered, who would hesitate to recommend them, on whose behalf prayers to God are not offered in vain? It is not at all to be doubted that such prayers are of profit to the dead; but for such of them as lived before their death in a way that makes it possible for these things to be useful to them after death" (ibid., 172:2).

"Temporal punishments are suffered by some in this life only, by some after death, by some both here and hereafter, but all of them before that last and strictest judgment. But not all who suffer temporal punishments after death will come to eternal punishments, which are to follow after that judgment" (The City of God 21:13 [A.D. 419]).

"That there should be some fire even after this life is not incredible, and it can be inquired into and either be discovered or left hidden whether some of the faithful may be saved, some more slowly and some more quickly in the greater or lesser degree in which they loved the good things that perish, through a certain purgatorial fire" (Handbook on Faith, Hope, and Charity 18:69 [A.D. 421]).

"The time which interposes between the death of a man and the final resurrection holds souls in hidden retreats, accordingly as each is deserving of rest or of hardship, in view of what it merited when it was living in the flesh. Nor can it be denied that the souls of the dead find relief through the piety of their friends and relatives who are still alive, when the Sacrifice of the Mediator [Mass] is offered for them, or when alms are given in the Church. But these things are of profit to those who, when they were alive, merited that they might afterward be able to be helped by these things. There is a certain manner of living, neither so good that there is no need of these helps after death, nor yet so wicked that these helps are of no avail after death" (ibid., 29:109).

Woody: Where did you get your quote of Augustine if you've never really delved into his works? Rather presumptuous to quote someone you know nothing about... For the record, Augustine was Catholic! And the "Roman" doctrines he espoused he supported quite well biblically :) Happy reading!
 
Upvote 0

Reformationist

Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam
Mar 7, 2002
14,273
465
52
✟44,595.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Shelb5 said:
No. It's not a contradiction. God gives all men grace. He may not give them all the same grace and he even Predestines some to heaven.

Okay. I think I said that:

Reformationist said:
Michelle, God does give a measure of grace to all people. What He does not give to all people is the same measure of grace.

We believe [Catholic's teach] predestination.

Yes, I know you do. However, your interpretation of predestination is anthropocentric and completely disregards man's moral inability to positively respond to the Gospel apart from the grace of God. Yes, I know that your church teaches prevenient grace. But the Catholic position on prevenient grace is that all people receive this prevenient grace, in fact, the same measure of prevenient grace, and yet some respond and some don't. So, where is the difference to be found? Oh, that's right. In the creation.

God has predestine some to heaven but he has a plan for everyone, the BVM is one example.

Umm...I'm sure I'm being dense but, what is BVM?

He has predestine certain prophets like Moses etc to do just what they did. It is not something like it was up to them if they respond so the salvation of the world depended on them.

Oooohhhh, I see now. God created man with free will and then took it away from "prophets like Moses." Huh??!!

God did raise up certain people and predestined them to do what he intend them to do, we know but that does not at all mean that he neglected to even give someone else enough grace where they would be able to accept Christ's death and resurrection.

Michelle, this makes no sense. We don't "accept Christ's death and resurrection" because we're smarter or more holy. We accept it because of the grace of God. His grace is sufficient to create in us faith and a desire to serve Him. You seem to be making the claim that God predestined some and will ensure their salvation but for those He didn't predestine, well, they still have a chance. Don't you see? Apart from the sovereign work of the Lord in bringing us to faith we don't have a chance.

You see, he places all of us with out exception in the place where we can come to know him, believing and unbelieving so they have no excuse if they were to follow the path that God has put them on.

Really? Your contention is that every single person is put where they're put by God so that they can come to know Him?

They however are free to ignore him and do what they want which leads to hardness of heart.

Fallen man IS BORN with a heart that is at enmity against God. That's the way he's born Michelle. We don't develop a heart that rebells against God. That's what we have to start with. That is all over the Bible. How can you ignore that?

What ever grace he gives in what ever way, it is not one size grace fits all. The grace he gives you is sufficient for you to be able to follow his plan and be saved, the grace he gives to another may be extraordinary like those that he gives to his saints where they are destine for sanctity or sainthood.

Michelle, I don't think you know what the word "sufficient" means. If you are given something that IS "sufficient" to accomplish something then it DOES accomplish it. If it DOES NOT accomplish what it was given for, then it IS NOT "sufficient."

The grace my not be the same and he may not have the same plan for everybody but what ever grace he gives to whatever person is sufficient for them to respond to God's chosen plan, if the do not then they are the reprobates.

If they do not positively respond to the Gospel then the grace WAS NOT SUFFICIENT. You seem to have no clue what sufficient means.

Look here:

sufficient - enough to meet the needs of a situation or a proposed end.

If God's grace is sufficient then it is "enough to meet the needs of a situation or a proposed end," which is the purpose for which the grace was given. So, if the purpose for which the grace was given is not accomplished then guess what IS NOT sufficient? That's right. The grace.

It is free will, we are free to choose him because he gives us grace to but we believe we are also free to turn him down because we are also free to do that to.

What image of God do you have? You worship a God who gives His grace to bring something about but leaves it up to the recipient of His grace as to whether His divine Will comes about? That is so crazy, not to mention man centered. Michelle, why would God give a person grace for the purpose of His Will being accomplished only to have that grace not accomplish the purpose for which it was given? That makes God capricious at best. According to that, God could give His grace to every single person that He ever created for the purpose of bringing about their salvation only to have that grace fail in bringing about their salvation. Don't you see, if that grace has no power to bring about the Will of God then we cannot rest in any of the promises of God? Everything could work out contrary to the Will of God because there are five billion people that He created that are completely able to thwart His plan.

Not guarantee salvation so much as to guarantee his plan for us that will guarantee us salvation if we stick with God's plan.

So we are ultimately saved because "we stick with God's plan?" That's sounds exactly like what the Jews thought. They thought their salvation was given because they kept the law. Truly sad.

He predestine us to heaven by his plan that he has for us but we have to follow his plan and give ourselves over to it, if we do, then we are on the road to salvation if we take a different route than the one God has picked out for us then we are on the road to hell and that is not hs fault.

I don't even know what to say to this. That is the most creation centered, works oriented view of salvation I've ever heard a Christian express. I'm truly shocked. God, the sovereign Creator, created Michelle for a specific purpose. That purpose included His desire to bring Himself glory by saving her. Even though God desires her salvation He is completely impotent in ensuring her salvation. He truly desires to bring glory to Himself but that desire can only come to fruition because Michelle decides to "follow His plan and give herself over to it." This is about 1 degree of separation from a full on humanistic theology. :(

Yeah, I believe that God opened up the gates of mercy because of the sacrifice that his son has made for all of mankind. God saw that his son, the perfect lamb with out blemish died for all the sins of this world and for the sin of Adam. So he opened up the gates of his mercy and who ever partakes in his mercy is forgiven.

So we're not saved because Christ died for us but rather because we partake of His offer of salvation? Wow. :eek: :(

If some do not want to come in, it has nothing to do with it being insufficient or because that sacrifice was not for them, it is because they are not following God's plan of salvation for them in their own lives.

Seriously...look up sufficient. You are incorrectly using the word.

You'll have to ask him. I assume it is because he has a certain plan for some where he predestines them to do just what they do and others Like Jacob and Esau where he loved Jacob and predestined him and he hated Esau and did not.

That wasn't a question. That was a statement: "What He does not give to all people is the same measure of grace." I was telling you that He does not give all people the same measure of grace. I wasn't asking you why He doesn't.

It still doesn’t mean the he predestined Esau to hell or that he just let him go to hell because he didn't save him from it, it just means that he had a much different plan for Jacob so he preferred him in that way. Why Jacob and not Esau, why not the other way around, only God know's why he does what he does.

Jacob and Esau are such a poignant example of God's monergistic work of regeneration. Not only were these two people brothers but they were twin brothers. God blatantly says that they were chosen according to His purpose of election, not their works. Despite that, you completely disregard Scripture and say that God did choose Jacob but He did so because He knew "ahead of time" that Jacob would choose Him "of his own free will," once again completely disregarding Scripture which says that He chooses us first and that the very reason that we love Him is because He extends His divine, efficacious love to us in changing our hearts from hearts of stone to hearts of flesh.

We all have a plan on our lives and God puts us right where he wants us but some will not follow his plan and some will, because we are all free to obey or disobey God.

So, according to you, God could have a divine Plan that was established in eternity by the Godhead and that plan included everyone's salvation and then God creates Ted Bundy and he goes on a killing spree and kills 30+ people. Wait a minute???!!! God had a plan for those people right? You mean to tell me that the maverick creation named Ted Bundy thwarted God's Plan for those people because he chose not disobey God and not follow His plan for his life?

It is sufficient to bring about salvation if the person applied it to his or her life and follow God in all things.
Seriously, look up the word "sufficient." If the grace is "sufficient" to accomplish something then IT is enough. If IT'S NOT enough to accomplish what it was given to accomplish then IT'S NOT sufficient.

If the person did not obey God and did their own thing does that mean that God failed the person in some way or does it mean that the person failed themselves because they choose not to accept his sufficient grace.

If the grace was sufficient for them to obey, then they WOULD obey. Here, let me help: Merriam-Webster Online. Just type in "sufficient."

If I gave you, not just offered you the money to pay your rent and you did not pay your rent but instead you tore up the check or you spent the money on something else does that mean I was insufficient or does that mean you were insufficient?

No. That means that you giving me money to pay my rent is not sufficient to get my rent paid. You see, it means it's not sufficient. If, however, you gave my landlord money to cover my rent then you giving him money is sufficient to get my rent paid. See how that works. If it accomplishes it's goal then it was sufficient. If it doesn't, then it wasn't sufficient.

I mean I could go and pay it for you because I can't trust you to pay it for yourself or because I want to be the one totally in control of your life but that would mean that it is a slave-master relationship where you had no freedom to follow me out of love, you would be following me because you had no choice, I took away your choice.

Okay. I don't see your point. Is this supposed to parallel how you understand my view of regeneration? In the case of regeneration God sovereignly and monergistically regenerates us. That is, He does it on His own. The way He does this is by giving us a new heart that is inclined to worship Him in faith. We could not give ourselves a new heart and we did not desire to serve Him with our old heart. God must give us a new desire. He does that by regenerating us.

If I followed you on trust, then that is truly a equal relationship one not based on works, if I do x y and z correctly and you did x y and z for me to insure I did it correctly then it is not authentic trust and love.

Michelle, what in the world (and by "world" I mean "world of meanings" ;)) do you possibly mean by this?

And let's say you gave me the money and I did just what you trusted me to do, how would you look at me then? The relationship would be as good as it could be but if you take away that trust and treat me as if I can't obey you on my own then would you still look at me the same?

Again, huh??? Is this how you see God's work of redemption?

What I am saying is if we are elected and given grace irresistible he is still depending on us isn’t he, to bare fruit and obey?

I don't think "depending on us" is accurate but He does command it of us.

And once your given the grace that you can only say yes to because your nature has undergone a radical change, God is still depending on you to be obedient because if your not then that means he did not really save you then.

Michelle, the Gospel is not about the creation. It's about God. If God changes your nature and works in you a desire to do for His good pleasure then guess what you do...that's right...you do for His good pleasure. He's not sitting there biting His divine nails saying, "Man, I sure hope he obeys so I can see if I actually changed him." If He changed you then you will progressively grow to obey Him. If He did not change you, then you won't obey Him.

I mean we never lost the ability to choose between good and evil and God never abandoned us to our own depravity. He shines his grace on the individual that he created that individual to have to make good choices but that does not mean that he still doesn’t allow them to choose wrongly.

What we lost in the Fall was all desire to choose good so guess what we will never choose in our fallen state? The good choice.

Again, I do not believe that after the fall of Adam our nature was destroyed where we have to be regenerated first and restored to perfect grace in order for Christ sacrifice to be effective and sufficient.

Me neither. What's your point?

Now that’s illogical. You are saying that the only way God can trust you to make a morally free right choice is to make it for you.

Uh...no. I'm saying that man must always choose according to his greatest desire or inclination when faced with a moral choice. Our desires determine what we do. Whatever our greatest desire is, that is what we seek to fulfill. It is an integral part of how God made us. A fallen person's greatest desire is NEVER to obey God so he never obeys God.
 
Upvote 0

Reformationist

Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam
Mar 7, 2002
14,273
465
52
✟44,595.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
(cont.)
Yes but only if they are deserving of punishment. He presedestined Jacob and not Esua. He insured Jacob for the sake of his plan but he just didn't insure Esua but that does not mean that Esua was left for dead. If he wanted to accept God, he was always free to do it because what God did preordain for him was enough to do that.

Michelle, I have never had one single post, in all the time I've been a member of this MB, show such a truly man centered approach to the Gospel. The REASON that Jacob loved God and followed Him is because God changed his heart. The REASON that Esau did not love God and follow Him is because it was not God's plan for Esau to love and follow Him so God did not change his heart. If it was God's plan, He would have given Esau a new heart that desired to obey God. God doesn't insure the salvation of some and "leave the door open" for the others to find their way. If He regenerates you, you are His child and your salvation is assured. If He does not regenerate you then you are not His child and there is no other way you will even desire to be saved.

All people deserve death. All people have sinned. All have earned death. God could have been completely just in sending every single person that ever sinned, which is every single person except Christ, to hell.

He will not condemn someone by no fault of their own and if God won't give you grace then it's not your fault is it?

Hmmm...where have I heard that before?

Romans 9:14,15,19-21
What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion." You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?" (the previous questions are an exact parallel to what you just asked Michelle) But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?" Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?

*italicized text inserted by me.

What was Paul's response to that exact same inquiry? He said, doesn't God have the authority to create some for the purpose of being glorified and others for the purpose of being punished?

He also desires all men to be saved.

Is the salvation of all men the greatest desire of God for us?

All the time.

Okay, if it's "all the time" give me one single example of a time when you were faced with a choice of sinning or obeying God and you acted contrary to whichever of those, sinning or obeying God, was your greatest desire at that moment.

I'll give you an example of what I'm talking about. Let's say that someone has a problem with overeating and they know it's sinful so they wish to obey God and not let their sinfulness dominate them so they go on a diet. As time goes by their desire to overeat becomes greater and greater. They still desire to please God so they refrain from gluttonous behavior. Then one day, they reeeeaaaally desire to be gluttonous.

Do you realize when they actually disobey God and engage in gluttonous behavior? They do so as soon as their desire to be gluttonous is greater than their desire to obey God at that moment. That's why Christians are urged to set their minds on the things of God and meditate on the Word of God and pray without ceasing and guard ourselves from temptation. It's becaue the minute that we have a desire to do something more than we desire to obey God we sin.

I'm looking forward to hearing your example of how you acted contrary to your greatest desire or inclination at the time you made the decision.

God bless
 
Upvote 0

Reformationist

Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam
Mar 7, 2002
14,273
465
52
✟44,595.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Andrew said:
The majority is not always wrong either.

Never said they were. What's your point?

So the "majority is not always right" argument does not prove Limited Atonement either.

Again, never said it did.

The results just tell us that most here do not agree with Limited Atonement. And I am happy to know that. :clap:

I'm sure you are.
 
Upvote 0

CCWoody

Voted best Semper Reformada signature ~ 2007
Mar 23, 2003
6,684
249
56
Texas
Visit site
✟8,255.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Bastoune said:
Woody: Where did you get your quote of Augustine if you've never really delved into his works? Rather presumptuous to quote someone you know nothing about... For the record, Augustine was Catholic! And the "Roman" doctrines he espoused he supported quite well biblically :) Happy reading!

I never said that I had not read Augustine. I have simply not read all of Augustine. He was, after all, one of the more prolific ones. I will return to Augustine after I have finished with the works of the Ante-Nicene fathers and have worked my way by Calendar order back to him.

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.
 
Upvote 0

CCWoody

Voted best Semper Reformada signature ~ 2007
Mar 23, 2003
6,684
249
56
Texas
Visit site
✟8,255.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Just in case anyone cares, the following is the verse which directly addresses the poll question at the top of the thread. I suspect that people are rather quiet about this verse as they really have no explaination about how to reconcile it to their doctrine.
  • This is My blood... which is shed for MANY for the remission of sins.

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.
 
Upvote 0

Benedicta00

Well-Known Member
Jun 25, 2003
28,512
838
Visit site
✟55,563.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Woody,

It was already explained by lambslove.

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>
 
Upvote 0

Reformationist

Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam
Mar 7, 2002
14,273
465
52
✟44,595.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
littleman said:
2 Corinthians 5:15

The ones He died for are the same as the "all" who "died" with Him as a result of His death, who are mentioned at the end of the verse:

2 Corinthians 5:15
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.

Proof-texting gets you nowhere. All it does is show that you seek to prove an unbiblical assertation by taking something out of context.
 
Upvote 0

CCWoody

Voted best Semper Reformada signature ~ 2007
Mar 23, 2003
6,684
249
56
Texas
Visit site
✟8,255.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Shelb5 said:
Woody,

It was already explained by lambslove.

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>

I'm sorry but this isn't an explaination at all.
  • worked for many years doesn't mean work for all years.
  • many a man doesn't mean all men.
If the Lord has wished to mean all, He would have used "all" not "many". So, respectfully, lambslove didn't even address the verse.
  • This is My blood... which is shed for MANY for the remission of sins.
Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.
 
Upvote 0

Benedicta00

Well-Known Member
Jun 25, 2003
28,512
838
Visit site
✟55,563.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
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>

:confused:
 
Upvote 0

CCWoody

Voted best Semper Reformada signature ~ 2007
Mar 23, 2003
6,684
249
56
Texas
Visit site
✟8,255.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Reformationist said:
The ones He died for are the same as the "all" who "died" with Him as a result of His death, who are mentioned at the end of the verse:

2 Corinthians 5:15
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.

Proof-texting gets you nowhere. All it does is show that you seek to prove an unbiblical assertation by taking something out of context.

Actually, "D", what is worse is that when people bring up these verses to purportedly prove that "many" means "all" they are really only pitting the Lord to war with Paul and calling the scriptures a lie.

What they don't realize is that the greek had no word to describe "all manner of" or "all sorts of" or "some of each"; they only had pas, which we translate all. Therefore one must always look that the immediate context of the verse to discover just eactly what "all" means.

In the case of this verse, as you have pointed out "He died for all" is clearly explained in the very same sentence when we read "He died for them", where the indefinite pronoun "them" is clearly defined as "those who live."

This ain't rocket science. It merely requires that one set aside their preconceived notions about what they expect to find and simply read what is actually there.

And, just in case someone wants to actually directly address the defining verse in this poll contronvosy, here it is again:
  • This is My blood... which is shed for MANY for the remission of sins.
The Lord said it; I believe it as does Reformationist; why don't you?

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.
 
Upvote 0

CCWoody

Voted best Semper Reformada signature ~ 2007
Mar 23, 2003
6,684
249
56
Texas
Visit site
✟8,255.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Shelb5 said:
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>

:confused:

I understand your confusion. Aparently you have all been led to believe that "a large but indefinite number" must be the same thing as "all without any exception." Unfortunately, reprogramming your brain to accept the correct definitions may be beyond my abilities.

Still, I have no problem with the "many" that the Lord Himself tells us He shed His blood to remit their sins is indeed "a large but indefinite number." Actually, I believe that we are directly told that this large but indefinite number is a number known only to God from every nation and tribe and tongue and people group:
  • Revelation 5:9
    And they sang a new song, saying: "You are worthy to take the scroll, And to open its seals; For You were slain, And have redeemed us to God by Your blood Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation,...
Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.


The Lord Jesus: "This is My blood... which is shed for MANY for the remission of sins."
What shall we say of these things: "Even so, Father, for so it seems good in your sight!"
 
Upvote 0

Reformationist

Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam
Mar 7, 2002
14,273
465
52
✟44,595.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
CCWoody said:
Actually, "D", what is worse is that when people bring up these verses to purportedly prove that "many" means "all" they are really only pitting the Lord to war with Paul and calling the scriptures a lie.

What they don't realize is that the greek had no word to describe "all manner of" or "all sorts of" or "some of each"; they only had pas, which we translate all. Therefore one must always look that the immediate context of the verse to discover just eactly what "all" means.

In the case of this verse, as you have pointed out "He died for all" is clearly explained in the very same sentence when we read "He died for them", where the indefinite pronoun "them" is clearly defined as "those who live."

This ain't rocket science. It merely requires that one set aside their preconceived notions about what they expect to find and simply read what is actually there.

And, just in case someone wants to actually directly address the defining verse in this poll contronvosy, here it is again:
  • This is My blood... which is shed for MANY for the remission of sins.
The Lord said it; I believe it as does Reformationist; why don't you?

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.

Amen my brother. :)
 
Upvote 0

Benedicta00

Well-Known Member
Jun 25, 2003
28,512
838
Visit site
✟55,563.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
CCWoody said:
I understand your confusion. Aparently you have all been led to believe that "a large but indefinite number" must be the same thing as "all without any exception." Unfortunately, reprogramming your brain to accept the correct definitions may be beyond my abilities.

Don't talk down to me as if I am stupid because I do not believe as YOU have been programed to believe.

Still, I have no problem with the "many" that the Lord Himself tells us He shed His blood to remit their sins is indeed "a large but indefinite number." Actually, I believe that we are directly told that this large but indefinite number is a number known only to God from every nation and tribe and tongue and people group:
  • Revelation 5:9
    And they sang a new song, saying: "You are worthy to take the scroll, And to open its seals; For You were slain, And have redeemed us to God by Your blood Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation,...
Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.


The Lord Jesus: "This is My blood... which is shed for MANY for the remission of sins."
What shall we say of these things: "Even so, Father, for so it seems good in your sight!"

Yeah, Only God knows who persevered to the end and was saved and that number is indefinite, we do not know the number only God knows who responded out of free will and who did not.

Those are your elected, Buddy-- and those are the reprobates. The ones at the resurrection who are saved and the ones who are ******.

You do not think that god knows who will be raised on the last day and who will be sent to hell for all eternity?
 
Upvote 0

Reformationist

Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam
Mar 7, 2002
14,273
465
52
✟44,595.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Shelb5 said:
Those are your elected, Buddy-- and those are the reprobates. The ones at the resurrection who are saved and the ones who are ******.

So God's eternal, sovereign decision of predestining and reprobating is actually done based on who perseveres and who doesn't? What about it the Word point blank telling us that it's "not of him who wills nor of him who runs?" That is the exact opposite of what you are purporting here.

You do not think that god knows who will be raised on the last day and who will be sent to hell for all eternity?

Of course God knows who will be raised on the last day and who won't. He'll be the One doing the raising. Things happen according to His sovereign Plan. His Plan doesn't come to fruition because man cooperated. Man cooperates because God extends His sovereign, efficacious grace to accomplish His eternal Plan.

God bless
 
Upvote 0

calgal

Well-Known Member
Mar 25, 2003
2,015
48
Western MI
Visit site
✟24,975.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
CCWoody said:
I understand your confusion. Aparently you have all been led to believe that "a large but indefinite number" must be the same thing as "all without any exception." Unfortunately, reprogramming your brain to accept the correct definitions may be beyond my abilities.

Still, I have no problem with the "many" that the Lord Himself tells us He shed His blood to remit their sins is indeed "a large but indefinite number." Actually, I believe that we are directly told that this large but indefinite number is a number known only to God from every nation and tribe and tongue and people group:
  • Revelation 5:9
    And they sang a new song, saying: "You are worthy to take the scroll, And to open its seals; For You were slain, And have redeemed us to God by Your blood Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation,...
Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.


The Lord Jesus: "This is My blood... which is shed for MANY for the remission of sins."
What shall we say of these things: "Even so, Father, for so it seems good in your sight!"

Woody, I think you hit a nerve. her reply was quite evocative of the screaming 3 year old I heard all through Target last weekend. :D

CalGal
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.