Was 'Christ died for our sins' preached to the unsaved?

[A New Dawn]

It is a fact that the unbelieving unelect (your definition) are being preached to if Paul and co. told them v.3. Yes, they reject it, but they are still cognizant of the fact of what they were told.

How are they cognizant? And what about the millions that are never told? You seem to think them being "told" is important to something, yet there are billions who will never hear it. What is your point?

I don't understand how you think TUIP survives the loss of L.

What does that mean? Where do I suggest that there is no L in TULIP?

 

[janxharris]

How are they cognizant? And what about the millions that are never told? You seem to think them being "told" is important to something, yet there are billions who will never hear it. What is your point?

What does that mean? Where do I suggest that there is no L in TULIP?

So Christ did not die for everyone but you think telling anyone and everyone that 'Christ died for our sins' is right and proper? It is deception isn't it? Paul never would have done so if Christ did not die for all.

 

[janxharris]

The word is actually the word translated as "all". And the writer goes on to describe who he has in mind in the following verses. Context.

Actually, the context is all men, for the writer quotes Psalm 8:4-8
what is mankind that you are mindful of them, human beings that you care for them? You have made them a little lower than the angels and crowned themf with glory and honor. You made them rulers over the works of your hands; you put everything under their feet:

If Christ too away the sins of everyone, then any who are in hell are there unjustly. This is an argument that Arminians always run away from. They think quoting this verse solves everything.

If Christ pays for the sin of unbelief in the elect (per your understanding of that word), why do they need to believe? Your definition of the atonement remains in error so your argument (above) is a strawman.

Arminians don't really believe this. They think He only came to try to save sinners. His success is fully dependent upon man's willingness.

Omniscience and 'trying' don't mesh.

It's clear from the context (notice how the Arminian excluded the previous verses) that Paul has in mind all types of men. Either that, or we must believe that Christ is mediating between God and those who will never believe.

The 'all men' of v.1 is the same as the 'all men' of v.4. For some reason v.2 becomes all important to you. V.2 provides examples of the 'all men' that Paul urges prayer for. There is no sense in which Paul is making a case against those who may have suggested that God did not desire the salvation of certain types of people. The Greek is - pantōn (πάντω&#957 anthrōpōn (ἀνθρώπω&#957 - all men. The Greek is not 'all types of men'.

1 First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, 2 for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. 3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

This will take more space than I want to dedicate. But if christ is the savior of all people, that is universalism.

Already dealt with this. Your definition leads to a strawman.

If all sins are atoned for, then those in hell are there unjustly.

Your definition leads to a strawman.

This is my favorite. I don't know what version this is from, but it's probably the only one that uses the word "offer". Plus, singling it out totally rips it out of context. But at this point, is anyone surprised?

You didn't provide a refutation.

Number of verses that when taken in context support your view? Zero.

You were wrong. The verses provided are so clear in their meaning but your tradition blinds you. 'Chirst died for our sins' has been preached for two thousand years because of the clarity of such sciptures.

 

[Hammster]

So you are not going to deal with v.3a then? It is as though your admitting it seems to say what I have suggested in the OP, but because there's no example in Acts, it can't be.

As I have said before, if it says what I suggest then 1 Cor 15 is an example of what you are requesting.

I've dealt with the op.

1. You say it's of first importance that this is preached to unbelievers. Yet, in all of Acts, this never comes up. It does come up in his letters to believers, however.

2. You've made "our" sins mean "everyone's" sins. Nothing in the text itself suggests that. So it's based on your presupposition.

Two arguments that you'll just dismiss with a wave of the hand.

 

[Hammster]

Actually, the context is all men, for the writer quotes Psalm 8:4-8
what is mankind that you are mindful of them, human beings that you care for them? You have made them a little lower than the angels and crowned themf with glory and honor. You made them rulers over the works of your hands; you put everything under their feet:



If Christ pays for the sin of unbelief in the elect (per your understanding of that word), why do they need to believe? Your definition of the atonement remains in error so your argument (above) is a strawman.



Omniscience and 'trying' don't mesh.



The 'all men' of v.1 is the same as the 'all men' of v.4. For some reason v.2 becomes all important to you. V.2 provides examples of the 'all men' that Paul urges prayer for. There is no sense in which Paul is making a case against those who may have suggested that God did not desire the salvation of certain types of people. The Greek is - pantōn (πάντω&#957 anthrōpōn (ἀνθρώπω&#957 - all men. The Greek is not 'all types of men'.

1 First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, 2 for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. 3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.



Already dealt with this. Your definition leads to a strawman.



Your definition leads to a strawman.



You didn't provide a refutation.



You were wrong. The verses provided are so clear in their meaning but your tradition blinds you. 'Chirst died for our sins' has been preached for two thousand years because of the clarity of such sciptures.

I deal with the texts, and you just give more presuppositions. In other words, it must mean what you say because we know Christ died for all.

So yeah, that went like I figured.

 

[A New Dawn]

So Christ did not die for everyone but you think telling anyone and everyone that 'Christ died for our sins' is right and proper? It is deception isn't it? Paul never would have done so if Christ did not die for all.

Is there some reason you need to twist what I say? What I say is clear enough. Why don't you just answer the question instead of making it appear I said something I didn't?

Here they are again since you seemed to have missed them.

How are they cognizant? And what about the millions that are never told? You seem to think them being "told" is important to something, yet there are billions who will never hear it. What is your point?

 

[janxharris]

Is there some reason you need to twist what I say? What I say is clear enough. Why don't you just answer the question instead of making it appear I said something I didn't?

Twist? Let me remind you what you wrote:

Me:
'Christ died for our sins,' Paul proclaims to those who will never believe, and yet you still deny that Christ died for all?
I have no problem with those that will never believe the gospel, but your theology is clearly inconsistent.

You:
Paul is talking to believers and those who will become believers. That is his target audience. It doesn't matter that some who weren't, and never would be, believers were there to hear it. The offer was made to all (if that is what you insist) so that the elect would hear and respond. IT. JUST. DOESN'T. MATTER.

(http://www.christianforums.com/t7840224-18/#post66344115)

It is clear that you accept that Paul proclaimed 'Christ dies for our sins' to the unsaved - so why do you charge me with twisting your words?

Here they are again since you seemed to have missed them.
How are they cognizant? And what about the millions that are never told? You seem to think them being "told" is important to something, yet there are billions who will never hear it. What is your point?

So Paul tells a crowd of unelievers that 'Christ died for their sins' and you maintain that those that are not elect (your definition) aren't cognizant? Paul has told them what Christ did for them...how much clearer could this be?

I believe that those that never hear may still be saved. Sending such persons to eternal separation from God just because they did not hear would be unconscionable.

 

[janxharris]

I deal with the texts, and you just give more presuppositions. In other words, it must mean what you say because we know Christ died for all.

So yeah, that went like I figured.

Nothing here that refutes what I wrote. It appears that you do not like dealing with specifics.

 

[janxharris]

I've dealt with the op.

1. You say it's of first importance that this is preached to unbelievers. Yet, in all of Acts, this never comes up. It does come up in his letters to believers, however.

I gave you scriptures where the apostles preached the gospel. And what does this say:
As I have said before, if it says what I suggest then 1 Cor 15 is an example of what you are requesting.

2. You've made "our" sins mean "everyone's" sins. Nothing in the text itself suggests that. So it's based on your presupposition.

Two arguments that you'll just dismiss with a wave of the hand.

Did Paul pass on what he received 'in the foremost'? Does preaching till converted and then passing on what he received constitute 'in the foremost'?

Why won't you deal with the wording?

 

[rick357]

For the sake of clarity Jesus died that those who wanted to be restored to the position Adam lost( of a living son )could have the death that was the penalty of their sins paid for ...freeing them to accept the life that comes from God living in you.

 

[janxharris]

For the sake of clarity Jesus died that those who wanted to be restored to the position Adam lost( of a living son )could have the death that was the penalty of their sins paid for ...freeing them to accept the life that comes from God living in you.

Could you clarify please?

 

[rick357]

Could you clarify please?

Lol....yea Im not allways clear but I'll try.
Adam ate from the tree and it was a sin because he had a command from God not to...
that sin became a seed which brought death in to Adam which he passed us.

*[[Eze 18:20]] RNKJV* The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

so Adam did not pass his sin to us but he became a tree of death and every tree bears seed after its own kind... but since we were born of death it grew fruit of sin.
in Jesus death we also die in order that his life may live through us

*[[Rom 6:5-10]] RNKJV* For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
For he that is dead is freed from sin.
Now if we be dead with the Messiah, we believe that we shall also live with him:
Knowing that the Messiah being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto יהוה.

so my point is that Jesus did not die to take away the individual sins... but to carry away our death that we might have the life of the Son of God living in us.

 

[A New Dawn]

Twist? Let me remind you what you wrote:

Me:
'Christ died for our sins,' Paul proclaims to those who will never believe, and yet you still deny that Christ died for all?
I have no problem with those that will never believe the gospel, but your theology is clearly inconsistent.

You:
Paul is talking to believers and those who will become believers. That is his target audience. It doesn't matter that some who weren't, and never would be, believers were there to hear it. The offer was made to all (if that is what you insist) so that the elect would hear and respond. IT. JUST. DOESN'T. MATTER.

(http://www.christianforums.com/t7840224-18/#post66344115)

It is clear that you accept that Paul proclaimed 'Christ dies for our sins' to the unsaved - so why do you charge me with twisting your words?

Because this is what you implied I said.

So Christ did not die for everyone but you think telling anyone and everyone that 'Christ died for our sins' is right and proper? It is deception isn't it? Paul never would have done so if Christ did not die for all.

I never suggested it was right or proper (as you have implied that I did), only that there will be those who are not elect who will hear the gospel when it is preached to the elect. I stated that they are not cognizant of the offer because to them it isn't an offer. It is a bunch of mumbo-jumbo that others are foolish to believe. It means nothing to them.

So Paul tells a crowd of unelievers that 'Christ died for their sins' and you maintain that those that are not elect (your definition) aren't cognizant? Paul has told them what Christ did for them...how much clearer could this be?

It isn't that it isn't clear, it's that it isn't heard. They don't have ears to hear, so they don't.

I believe that those that never hear may still be saved. Sending such persons to eternal separation from God just because they did not hear would be unconscionable.

And so you are upset with God about it? or me? I have nothing to do with it, so you must be upset with God about it.

 

[janxharris]

Because this is what you implied I said.

​

I never suggested it was right or proper (as you have implied that I did), only that there will be those who are not elect who will hear the gospel when it is preached to the elect. I stated that they are not cognizant of the offer because to them it isn't an offer. It is a bunch of mumbo-jumbo that others are foolish to believe. It means nothing to them.


It isn't that it isn't clear, it's that it isn't heard. They don't have ears to hear, so they don't.


And so you are upset with God about it? or me? I have nothing to do with it, so you must be upset with God about it.

That you think the so called non-elect cannot understand such words is astonishing. And your appeal to Isaiah 6:9-10 has already been addressed - Judas Iscariot, someone assumed by Calvinists to be of the non-elect, was NOT described by Jesus as Isaiah describes, but as the very opposite.

Whatever you or I might say on this matter cannot take away the fact that Paul is telling all that he preaches to of Christ's death for their sins - so Paul does believe this to be true.

Your acceptance that 1 Cor. 15:11 is with regard to the unsaved must mean that you do so too. That you would, whilst maintaining that Christ did not die for all, appears to be an untenable and extremely contradictory position. Potentially, you might say 'Christ died for our sins' but then be forced, for clarification's sake, to explain that Christ did not die for all.

 

[janxharris]

Lol....yea Im not allways clear but I'll try.
Adam ate from the tree and it was a sin because he had a command from God not to...
that sin became a seed which brought death in to Adam which he passed us.

*[[Eze 18:20]] RNKJV* The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

so Adam did not pass his sin to us but he became a tree of death and every tree bears seed after its own kind... but since we were born of death it grew fruit of sin.
in Jesus death we also die in order that his life may live through us

*[[Rom 6:5-10]] RNKJV* For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
For he that is dead is freed from sin.
Now if we be dead with the Messiah, we believe that we shall also live with him:
Knowing that the Messiah being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto יהוה.

so my point is that Jesus did not die to take away the individual sins... but to carry away our death that we might have the life of the Son of God living in us.

Okay, but whom do you say might partake of this?

 

[nobdysfool]

I believe that those that never hear may still be saved. Sending such persons to eternal separation from God just because they did not hear would be unconscionable.

Please provide us with scriptural support for such an outrageous statement. You are, in effect, accusing God of dealing deceitfully with those who have never heard the Gospel. I would hope that you would know better than that. But, you made the statement as a point of what you believe, so now you need to show it from Scripture, or admit that you erred in making this statement.

Which will it be?

 

[rick357]

Okay, but whom do you say might partake of this?

that is a juxtaposition answer...which means two differant answers are equally correct depending on direction from which the question flows.
From the believer who is looking toward heaven it is for all men....whosoever will....God would that all men be saved....from our perspective any man might accept so we preach to all.

The perspective of heaven toward us is differant...God still loves all men...for he makes his rain fall on the just and unjust...but he has forknowledge....
so imaginary journey into the mind of God before he spoke the heavens and the earth into existance(I say before but truly God lives every moment of eternity at once forever)
He knows he will make a son Adam that contains within himself every other son that shall ever be revealed by procreation
He also knows that son will fall...also he knows that his word will be his true son and knows all those who will be saved from Adams rebellion and come into the second man...his first son.
So from our perspective it is to all men...from Gods perspective he knows those that are his.

 

[Hammster]

Nothing here that refutes what I wrote. It appears that you do not like dealing with specifics.

"Specifics" basically came down to "we know Christ died for all men, and here's verses to support that". So no, I won't deal with that.

 

[Hammster]

I gave you scriptures where the apostles preached the gospel. And what does this say:
As I have said before, if it says what I suggest then 1 Cor 15 is an example of what you are requesting.

It isn't an example. I think you know this. The context of verse 3 is to believers. He never says that he preached that to unbelievers. Never. And no example anywhere. You ignore this.

Did Paul pass on what he received 'in the foremost'? Does preaching till converted and then passing on what he received constitute 'in the foremost'?

Why won't you deal with the wording?

[/QUOTE] I'm the only one who is. You, as I keep staring, are making one word mean something else.

 

[Hammster]

I believe that those that never hear may still be saved. Sending such persons to eternal separation from God just because they did not hear would be unconscionable.

So sending missionaries is really a bad idea. It's best that someone NOT hear the gospel and be saved, than to hear it and possibly reject it.

Paul really screwed a lot of folks.