So who did Christ die for?

[LouisBooth]

"showing Scripturally that Christ's death HAS to equal salvation. "

Hmm..okay, I get ya. So you think that Christ's death (ie sacrifice) is not for the remission of sins? Have you read the book of hebrews? Try romans too. If you don't know where ask I'll point you to a specific verse...time to shine can ya find it?

 

[HITR]

I've seen some discussion on this verse, and I think it's always a great idea to look at the passages in context. I'm going to start by summarizing the first of John 3. Jesus speaks to Nicodemus, and clearly states that only those that have been born again will enter into the kingdom of God. Nicodemus didn't understand what He was talking about, and Christ Jesus said he could not believe those heavenly truths if he could not believe the earthly ones.

Now I'm moving on to verses 3:14 and 15, where it says:

(14) And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: (15) That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

Now, looking back in the OT (Numbers 21), we see:

(8) And the Lord said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live. (9) And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.

Numbers is pretty clear that any man that beheld the serpent would be healed. I have to believe that the Lord did not intend for us to believe that only a few would actually be chosen to look upon the brass serpent. Rather, the Lord made it very clear that every one that was bitten would live when he looked upon the brass serpent. Now, this is a very direct reference from the OT that Christ used to describe what His own purpose was, which was to be lifted up for all (unless, of course, He didn't really mean it to be in the same manner "as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness").

So verse 14 says clearly that, even as Moses lifted up the serpent, the Son of God must be lifted up. This begs the question why? So...

(15) That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

Now, while it could be argued that the 'world' in 3:16 is only referring to a 'select chosen', it's pretty clear from the context of all that has been referenced here that God meant all, just as he did back in the OT, when the people sinned against God. In the account of Numbers, remember that this was only for those who had been bitten. Those who had not (were there any? I'm not sure that it states whether there were or not) been bitten would not have need to gaze at the brass serpent. It's also strikingly evident that they were bitten for speaking against/sinning against God. That is the same issue that the passage in John is talking about. But again, in the same Spirit as Numbers, it is talking about all those who sinned would be healed when they look upon the Son of God.

Does that necessitate that all must do so (or that not all are eligible)? No, it doesn't necessitate either one. God gave His only begotten Son. That is a gift, and the truest gift ever given. Does the giving of the gift necessitate the acceptance of it? Why should it? Is God limited to that? I would contend that He's not. So why would there be men who wouldn't look to the Son of God?

(19) And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

Just as those in the desert were already (bitten and) condemned to die, they would be saved if they looked upon the serpent. This was available for all of them. Such is it with the passage in John 3. For all (have sinned against and) are condemned to die. There is complete harmony between what Jesus spoke about that incident in the desert (recorded in Numbers) and what he spoke of the sin-sick, lost world.

There's my two pennies for the night...thoughts? Hope this is finding everyone well.

Love in Him, HITR

 

[Andrew]

QUOTE: "Does everyone have the opertunity, yes, did Christ die for everyone? Nope. "

HUH? first u say everyone has the opportunity to be saved, then you say Christ did not die for everyone, so how can everyone have the opportunity? Big contradiction!

QUOTE: "He did not die for those who reject him."

How in the world can a man reject something when he has not even been offered it??? IOW how can man reject Jesus as saviour if Jesus did not even die to save him (as Calvinists maintain)??? Another big Contradiction!

 

[LouisBooth]

"Big contradiction! "

Not at all. Where do you see that? to answer your questions...Forknowledge.

 

[Andrew]

Common spiritual & grammar sense tells u there are contradictions in those statements.

Also, predestination does not imply limited atonement. Christ died for all, but those who are saved are predestined. Why shld predestination lead to a wrong belief in that the Blood discriminates?

If Jesus did not die for unbelievers too, then God has no 'right' to pour his wrath on "them that did not obey the truth of the gospel" (Thessalonians)

 

[eldermike]

I have posted this quite a few times. It's such a little and easy to miss thing. Let me try another way.

Jesus did not JUST die on a cross. HE HAD to die on a cross. Otherwise we are slaves to sin, "no slave will be saved" John 8 (30 something)

You can say you love God, accept Him as anything you want Him to be, but unless you believe that His blood on the cross was because of YOUR sins, even the ones you are going to commit, you are not saved. Here is why. We teach; that because of original sin, Jesus came to die on a cross. That is partly right and fatally wrong at the same time. Jesus had to die for me and my sons and their sons to come. That is who Jesus died for. He died so that if we could believe He had to die because we are sinners, we would be covered by His blood. If we reject His blood by works or pride then calling Him Lord is a waste of time. "Many will call me Lord"
or "Why do you call me Lord, Lord?"

Remember, Peter didn't think He needed a savior. He tried to keep Jesus from the cross, as did Satan. Many today are clean by some other method than by the blood of Christ. It is by works, pride, by comparing themselves to others. We deny Christ when we see others as sinners, WE ARE SINNERS. If the one we call a sinner is covered by the blood of Christ, they are saved and we are not. We have this all wrong.

Jesus had to die - not Jesus did die. Jesus had to die because we are sinners, TODAY we are sinners, not long ago.

For God so loved the world (all) that He gave (sacrificed) His Son, that whomever believed (now why do you think that sacrifice and believe are in the same sentence? because that is what you have to believe.

Everyone will know who is Lord but that is not salvation.
Does death = salvation? Nope - Knowing who you and God are and why He had to die = salvation. Jesus = God - You and I = sinner - Blood from the cross = payment. believing this = salvation.

Blessings to all,

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"showing Scripturally that Christ's death HAS to equal salvation. "

Hmm..okay, I get ya. So you think that Christ's death (ie sacrifice) is not for the remission of sins? Have you read the book of hebrews? Try romans too. If you don't know where ask I'll point you to a specific verse...time to shine can ya find it?

I'm aware of the passages that state that Christ's death was for the remission of sins, but you cannot provide a passage that says that for those who Christ died, Christ saved, where "not a drop of blood was shed" for those who were not saved.

 

[Reformationist]

Let me get this straight. Most of you are saying that when the Bible says that God wants everyone to be saved you take that as what? It's His Will but He has not the power to make it happen? People, there is a HUGE difference between "God's Will" and "God's benevolent desire." I still don't understand what's so difficult about this. If you believe that God is the Creator of all things created than that includes us. Now, as I've said before, there can only be three camps on this. You can word it different but every view will fall into one of these catagories:

1. - Yes. It is God's Will that everyone be saved but He is not able to make that a reality.

2. - No. It is not God's Will that everyone be saved and so some aren't.

3. - God is indifferent and does not concern Himself with the salvitic state of His creation.

There is a difference between examples of God's benevolence and God's sovereign Will. If something is God's Will it comes to pass, period. God did not desire to create man. He Willed it. If He Wills it, it's done.

God does not delight in the death of the wicked. God is not cruel. God is righteous.

Here are the results of the previous scenarios:

1. - According to His benevolent nature, God desires all men to be saved. He does not, however, have the ability to elect who shall hear His message in a way that will change their heart. God is not sovereign, and therefore, not omnipotent. He cannot control the outcome of HIS plan because He cannot determine the path His creation will take. And, in effect, He is nothing more than an entity that put things into motion and is now subject to the outcome, whatever it may be. Even though He knows the outcome because His vision is not limited by time He is not in control of it. Things could take a turn for the worse and God would be powerless to do anything.

2. - According to His benevolent nature, God desires all men to be saved. This desire is not, however, an effectual call to grace but rather God not delighting in the death of even those that live a life enmity. God picked out a people for the glory of His Son, reconciled them to Himself by the death of that Son, and is continually, actively conforming them to the image of that same righteous Son. God is sovereign and knows the outcome for each and every one of us because He created us to become exactly that which we become. Nothing is left to chance.

3. - God is neither active in the lives of His creation nor is He concerned about the outcome. Whether we are saved or not is of no consequence. The death of His Son served no purpose and was not effectual in any way.

Seems simple. God is sovereign, can't be #1. God cares about His children, can't be #3. Has to be #2.

If you have any opinions as to God's mindset with relation to God's involvement in our salvation please share (as I'm sure you will ).

God bless.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Or God desires that all men are to be saved and He is sovereign enough to give man a choice to decide for himself whether or not to accept salvation.

This one makes the most logical sense and Biblical sense.

 

[eldermike]

Reforma. ,you left one out.

4. God is amazed at our self-righteous view of salvation. He sent His Son to free us from the sin problem and then told us to go tell everyone (all the nations) about it. What we choose to tell them is: they must become slaves to the sin problem. They reject it and we call it predestination. I don't blame them for rejecting it, it's wrong. Until we learn what the good news was, we can't spread it. And we can't blame it on God, He did His part right, He forgave us, set us free, we are the ones with the chains ready for the next poor soul that feels the call of God and with our help, finds the slavery of religion.

Blessings

 

[HITR]

Why does it seem that those who believe that God has specifically created some men for the **ahem** glorifying purpose of destruction regularly give their own 'only options' list? I don't fall into any of those categories, regardless how hard another Christian tries to pin one of those labels on me. And why does God's benevolence and genuine desire to have all men saved compromise His soverignty? The only ones I've seen put forth the notion that 'God is not able' are those who limit God with their mortal-minded options. **shakes head sadly**

Originally posted by ScottEmerson
Or God desires that all men are to be saved and He is sovereign enough to give man a choice to decide for himself whether or not to accept salvation.

This one makes the most logical sense and Biblical sense.

I really don't think I could have said this any better if I'd written it myself.

No comment about the reference Christ himself made about the account of Moses and the brass serpent in Numbers?

Love of Jesus, HITR

 

[Reformationist]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson
Or God desires that all men are to be saved and He is sovereign enough to give man a choice to decide for himself whether or not to accept salvation.

This one makes the most logical sense and Biblical sense.

God being sovereign and at the same time subject to the decisions of man is an oxymoron. It makes no sense.

This is actually most closely related to God being indifferent to the choice we make. In the third option I presented, God has no goal in mind with regard for your salvation because if He isn't the one who decides it is no more than God wishing you would be saved in the same way one of His creations would wish that traffic would "let up" (bear with me, I live in Southern California). Your salvation is either decided by God according to His sovereign, providential design or it is decided by you and God is subject to your decision and therefore, either doesn't care what you choose or isn't truly sovereign.

God bless.

 

[Reformationist]

Originally posted by eldermike
Reforma. ,you left one out.

4. God is amazed at our self-righteous view of salvation.

God is amazed? This flies directly in the face of God's omniscience. I don't think anything we do "amazes" God.

He sent His Son to free us from the sin problem and then told us to go tell everyone (all the nations) about it.

"The sin problem?" I don't know that I've ever heard it referred to that way.

What we choose to tell them is: they must become slaves to the sin problem. They reject it and we call it predestination. I don't blame them for rejecting it, it's wrong.

What do you mean "they must become slaves to the sin problem?" Prior to God's effectual grace they were already slaves to their sinful nature, or "the sin problem" as you title it. So predestination is wrong, huh? Got it. You don't agree with predestination.

Until we learn what the good news was, we can't spread it. And we can't blame it on God, He did His part right, He forgave us, set us free, we are the ones with the chains ready for the next poor soul that feels the call of God and with our help, finds the slavery of religion.
Blessings

So you don't agree with religion? Got it.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Reformationist


God being sovereign and at the same time subject to the decisions of man is an oxymoron. It makes no sense.

This is actually most closely related to God being indifferent to the choice we make. In the third option I presented, God has no goal in mind with regard for your salvation because if He isn't the one who decides it is no more than God wishing you would be saved in the same way one of His creations would wish that traffic would "let up" (bear with me, I live in Southern California). Your salvation is either decided by God according to His sovereign, providential design or it is decided by you and God is subject to your decision and therefore, either doesn't care what you choose or isn't truly sovereign.

God bless.

He's not subject to anything - he invites us into having a relationship with Him. Have you read the passages in the BIble where God is grieved over his children who have rejected Him? Have you seen how God interacts with his children? Remember the passage where God acquieced his desires to kill all of the tribes of Israel when Moses asked Him to? Remember the specific passages that say that our prayer can result in blessings, but only if we ask for them?

God works with us. He desires for all of us to be saved, but He gives us a choice.

 

[Reformationist]

Originally posted by HITR
Why does it seem that those who believe that God has specifically created some men for the **ahem** glorifying purpose of destruction regularly give their own 'only options' list?

Oh sorry, HITR, you PM me your "only options" list and I'll switch my view to that. That would make me credible. I can only post my opinion, HITR. It is your perrogative to agree or disagree. But, as the old saying goes, "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem."

I don't fall into any of those categories, regardless how hard another Christian tries to pin one of those labels on me.

So, what is your opinion of God's involvement in the salvation of "all men." Did He "genuinely desire" it in a "benevolent" way but His desire was not effective in any way? What kind of God is that?

And why does God's benevolence and genuine desire to have all men saved compromise His soverignty?

It is only compromised if you understand God's desire to be equal to what He Wills to happen. God's benevolent nature does not allow Him to delight in the death of the wicked. I never said God was happy that some of His creations eternally perish. But, it is for His purpose, not ours. Additionally, I think it's misleading to apply God's behavior to His emotions. He is not ruled by them as we are.

The only ones I've seen put forth the notion that 'God is not able' are those who limit God with their mortal-minded options. **shakes head sadly**

Referring to anyone in particular?

No comment about the reference Christ himself made about the account of Moses and the brass serpent in Numbers?

What are you talking about? Numbers 21:4-9? Not sure what you're asking?

God bless.

 

[Reformationist]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson
He's not subject to anything - he invites us into having a relationship with Him.

Scott, if we're the ones making the decision, God is subject to that decision.

Have you read the passages in the BIble where God is grieved over his children who have rejected Him? Have you seen how God interacts with his children? Remember the passage where God acquieced his desires to kill all of the tribes of Israel when Moses asked Him to? Remember the specific passages that say that our prayer can result in blessings, but only if we ask for them?

Right, so God desired one thing and you think Moses changed His mind. This post of yours speaks volumes about your opinion on God's immutabability, or lack thereof. So, Scott, please enlighten me. If Moses had not asked God to spare them then they would all be dead? So we really owe our lives to Moses right? Or how about Abraham's request to spare the righteous in Sodom and Gehmorrah. God told him to get him and his family out and he changed God's mind, right? Yeah, that's what happened.

God works with us. He desires for all of us to be saved, but He gives us a choice.

I'm still confused as to whether you mean it is God's Will that all men be saved when you say "He desires." Is that what you mean?

God bless.

 

[HITR]

Originally posted by Reformationist
Oh sorry, HITR, you PM me your "only options" list and I'll switch my view to that. That would make me credible.

Why such sarcasm? **shrug** I don't have an 'only options' list. My view is that men ought not to limit what God will do, and just let God be God. I simply don't put Him in a box when it comes to areas (such as this one) that can be convincingly argued from either side. I can spend much time in prayerful study (which I've done on this issue) and can share my opinion and what I've seen in the Word, but I certainly can't make a claim such as this...

You can word it different but every view will fall into one of these catagories:

This is not an accurate statement, and this issue is not a cut-n-dry theological view clearly spelled out in the Word. To take a hard nosed stand that 'God won't' or 'God didn't in this area is, imo, simply trying to confine Him to a box. I've found He doesn't stay in our boxes very well.

I can only post my opinion, HITR. It is your perrogative to agree or disagree. But, as the old saying goes, "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem."

This statement you made, Reformationist, is not an opinion. It's an ultimatum of sorts. At best, it's an inaccurate position of placing all believers into one of three categories that simply do not cover all the views that believers in Christ hold. Yes, it is my perrogative to disagree, and I most definately do. So, by your statement I would gather that my disagreement makes me 'part of the problem'. Gee, sure hope that I'm reading you wrong here. I offered some commentary (that of Moses and the serpent), and tried to discussed the different aspect of this. I have yet to receive any response to it.

With regard to being part of the solution, I'm convinced that there are just some things that we are not meant to solve. There are reasons why God didn't leave physical, concrete proof of Himself for believers to use when following the command of the Great Commission. There are reasons why God left some areas in His word as He did (such as AofA, OSAS/OSnAS, election vs. free will, etc.). There are several instances such as this. While I can state my own opinions as to why this is so, I certainly cannot put myself in a position to proclaim to know with certainty all the mysteries of God. One day, however, that will be a different matter and I will have that understanding as I come face to face with my Savior and God.

So, what is your opinion of God's involvement in the salvation of "all men." Did He "genuinely desire" it in a "benevolent" way but His desire was not effective in any way? What kind of God is that?

Not my God. My God is more than sufficient. If you actually want to discuss it, I'd be happy to do that. But I'm not going to get roped up into a conversation dripping with sarcasm and mean-spiritedness. This may not have been your intent, but your posts are just ringing with it. Either we can discuss it respectfully or we can't. If we can, I'd say great! Where do ya wanna start? If we can't, then that's alright too. Perhaps another less sensitive topic, another day? Either way, if we can't be edifying to one another as brethren in the Lord while we discuss our differences, then our conversation will no doubt be fruitless and will cause more harm than good. That's jmho, so if you want to continue in Christian love you just say the word, okay?

God's benevolent nature does not allow Him to delight in the death of the wicked. I never said God was happy that some of His creations eternally perish. But, it is for His purpose, not ours.

Okay, going on the chance that you do opt to have a discussion with me, then I'll just go ahead and put this out there. God doesn't delight in the death of the wicked. God is not happy that some of His creations eternally perish. God makes some men for the sole purpose of destruction and eternal punishment. God does this for His purposes. [Now I'm just going to add some of my own commentary in amidst this.] God is in complete control and works all things for His glory. God creates some men for the sole purpose of destruction and eternal punishment, and is completely glorified in doing so. How does all of this harmonize with the word of God?

Additionally, I think it's misleading to apply God's behavior to His emotions. He is not ruled by them as we are.

I'm not sure where this came from? Who was talking about emotions? **scratches head in puzzlement** No, but keep one thing about 'God is love' in mind. Love is not an emotion in this sense, but rather an active constant at all times. I can say that God is complete love and still not be referring to emotion. Of course, I don't recall that I was speaking of either love or emotion, but all the same that's my view on that.

Referring to anyone in particular?

No, not really. I saw your 3-option list here, and made mention of the normalcy of this type of post. It truly wasn't to pick on you, Reformationist. I've been around a few of these boards for a long time now, and I see this type of thing consistently. So, no. I wasn't really referring to anyone in particular at all. This was an overall generalization, which I happened to make mention of simply because you happened to do it in this thread. If you found my comment to be offensive, I do sincerely apologize. It wasn't meant specifically or personally.

What are you talking about? Numbers 21:4-9? Not sure what you're asking?

I made a post about this very reference earlier in this thread (I think somewhere on page four, but I'm not really certain - could have been three, maybe). If you scan back, you'll certainly find it. Now if you do opt to discuss this with me, I'd truly love to hear your view on that passage. I'd also be interested in your revisiting the Romans 9-11 thread. I'd love to hear your comments on the post I made about 'Jacob have I loved, Esau have I hated' back in that thread. But I sincerely mean that this would have to be a respectful, in Christian love dialogue. There are simply too many lurkers reading these, and if we (by our conversing) are not known as His for our love for one another (particularly in times of disagreement over areas that are not black and white), then any discourse would be fruitless and would only prove to bring shame to His name. I personally would love to talk about it with you if you think we can stick to this...I think we can.

Peace of Christ, HITR

 

[Reformationist]

Originally posted by HITR
Why such sarcasm? **shrug**

It was uncalled for. I apologize.

This is not an accurate statement, and this issue is not a cut-n-dry theological view clearly spelled out in the Word. To take a hard nosed stand that 'God won't' or 'God didn't in this area is, imo, simply trying to confine Him to a box. I've found He doesn't stay in our boxes very well.

Okay, since I'm not God I can only offer my opinion, which you refer to as the "box" I place Him in. Must I preface all my comments with "in my opinion?"

This statement you made, Reformationist, is not an opinion. It's an ultimatum of sorts.

To what end? What exactly is the ultimatum for you if you disagree with a statement by someone you don't think knows what they're talking about. No, it was my opinion, pure and simple.

At best, it's an inaccurate position of placing all believers into one of three categories that simply do not cover all the views that believers in Christ hold.

In my opinion, all of the more widely accepted viewpoints will fall into one of these catagories. But, please tell me why you think it's not okay for me to state that my opinion is correct but it's perfectly acceptable in your opinion to turn around and say that my opinion is "at best an inaccurate position of placing all believers into one of three categories that simply do not cover all of the views that believers in Christ hold?" Inaccurate according to whom? You? Sorry but I didn't just "come up" with this doctrine. I place as much faith in my beliefs as you do in yours and have also spent much time studying scripture to come to where I am today.

So, by your statement I would gather that my disagreement makes me 'part of the problem'. Gee, sure hope that I'm reading you wrong here.

Uhh...no. What I meant was it's really easy to say that a viewpoint is wrong but not offer alternatives. It's a very safe position.

I offered some commentary (that of Moses and the serpent), and tried to discussed the different aspect of this. I have yet to receive any response to it.

I'll go back and look at it and respond to it, and the rest of the post when I get the chance.

God bless.

 

[eldermike]

reformationist,

You said <Got it.>

I don't think so.

 

[LouisBooth]

"where "not a drop of blood was shed" for those who were not saved."

hmm...Well yeah, those that aren't believed are condemned. Read it in john 3. If you're condemend christ could not have died for you or you WOULDN'T be condemned.YOu can also look in romans 3:26 "he did it ( talking about his death) to demonstrate his justice at the presen time, so as to be just and the one who (now listen closely) justifesd those who have fiath in Jesus." Got that?