Defining "works-based salvation" and the Blood of Christ

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Jeff I don't follow Calvin, I follow what the Bible teaches.

If both you and Calvin have interpreted the Bible as teaching that Jesus only loves a select few, then you agree with Calvin, and both of you are wrong.

If I thought that the Bible taught that Jesus paid for every sin for every single person then I would believe that

That is obviously true. Just like if I thought that the Bible taught that Jesus hates most of the human race so much that He didn't even give them a chance at salvation, then I would believe that.

And it brings up the problem that if Jesus did pay for every single sin for every single person then nobody would end up in hell.

That problem does not exist. It is the result of faulty reasoning. Jesus died even for the sinners who will choose to reject Him. He died for them because He loves even them, He loves them so much that He offers them salvation, and if they want it all they need to do is accept the atonement that He made for their sins. THAT is the GOOD news of the Gospel. If Jesus didn't pay the price for everyone's sins, then all those people who He failed to pay the price for never had a chance at salvation, which means that they were created hopeless. That is not something the God of the New Testament would do.

The GOOD NEWS of the New Testament is that thanks to what Jesus did for ALL of us, salvation is possible for ALL of us. Otherwise, the message of the New Testament would be mostly BAD NEWS for MOST of us--the message would be "There is no hope for you because Jesus didn't die for you." Is that really what you want to believe the Bible teaches? Why?

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

If both you and Calvin have interpreted the Bible as teaching that Jesus only loves a select few, then you agree with Calvin, and both of you are wrong.

As I said I follow the Bible not Calvin or any other person for that matter. If I can't support my positon from the Bible then I will tell you. A perfect example is when we spoke about salvation and little children. I clearly stated that the Bible doesn't speak on the issue with the exception of David's son. I then told you I have a personal opinion on the issue but that it was simply my opinion.

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

That is obviously true. Just like if I thought that the Bible taught that Jesus hates most of the human race so much that He didn't even give them a chance at salvation, then I would believe that.

There have been several issues that I have brought up on this topic but you haven't really answered them. You seem interested in this topic so perhaps you can engage and actually address what I have already brought up. Let's start with this one. You haven't given me a good answer to my question about why you believe that Jesus paid for every single sin for every single person because if he did then every single person would go to heaven.

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by Billyray

As I said I follow the Bible not Calvin or any other person for that matter.

But Calvin probably thought the HIS beliefs--which are the same as YOURS--followed the Bible. But if Calvin was wrong about that, then so are you.

You seem interested in this topic so perhaps you can engage and actually address what I have already brought up.

Sounds good. Let's do it.

Let's start with this one. You haven't given me a good answer to my question about why you believe that Jesus paid for every single sin for every single person because if he did then every single person would go to heaven.

It's pretty simple: You are wrong. It is entirely possible for Jesus to have paid the price for your sins, and you could still not inherit eternal life. This ****ogy should show you how this is possible:

There was a man who loved all people and who wanted to make a way for all people to safely cross a deep canyon. The bridge was the only way to get across the canyon, because any other way would cause a person to fall off and die instead of getting across.

Some people who wanted to cross the canyon wisely followed the bridge that the man had built for all who wanted to safely cross, and they made it.

Other people decided to take some other way, and they fell off and died and never made it across.

Then one day, Billy claimed that the man didn't really die making it possible for ALL people to safely cross the canyon, because if the man had REALLY died for ALL the people, then ALL the people would have made it across. Billy was wrong, because the man didn't just build the bridge for a FEW--he loved ALL of them, and the work that he gave his life building was for all of them. The fact that some of them chose to not use His bridge, doesn't mean that He didn't love them, or that He didn't want them to get safely across the canyon. It wasn't a matter of Him not doing something for them--it's that they chose to reject what He had done for them.

And now you know what the flaw was in your thinking.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

But Calvin probably thought the HIS beliefs--which are the same as YOURS--followed the Bible. But if Calvin was wrong about that, then so are you.

And how does that show that I follow Calvin instead of the Bible? It doesn't.

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

It's pretty simple: You are wrong. It is entirely possible for Jesus to have paid the price for your sins, and you could still not inherit eternal life. This ****ogy should show you how this is possible:

There was a man who loved all people and who wanted to make a way for all people to safely cross a deep canyon. The bridge was the only way to get across the canyon, because any other way would cause a person to fall off and die instead of getting across.

Some people who wanted to cross the canyon wisely followed the bridge that the man had built for all who wanted to safely cross, and they made it.

Other people decided to take some other way, and they fell off and died and never made it across.

Then one day, Billy claimed that the man didn't really die making it possible for ALL people to safely cross the canyon, because if the man had REALLY died for ALL the people, then ALL the people would have made it across. Billy was wrong, because the man didn't just build the bridge for a FEW--he loved ALL of them, and the work that he gave his life building was for all of them. The fact that some of them chose to not use His bridge, doesn't mean that He didn't love them, or that He didn't want them to get safely across the canyon. It wasn't a matter of Him not doing something for them--it's that they chose to reject what He had done for them.

And now you know what the flaw was in your thinking.

Actually it shows the flaw in your thinking. If Christ paid for every sin for every person then there wouldn't be any basis for sending anyone to Hell. You said "it's that they chose to reject what He had done for them." If they reject Christ and fail to place their faith in Him, isn't that a sin?

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

So you are one of those limited atonement folks who believe that there are billions of people who Jesus refused to, or failed to, die for?

Originally Posted by Billyray

Absolutely. . .

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

So you believe that Jesus refused or failed to atone for most people's sins. Wow. A finite atonement is what you believe in. . .

What does the Bible say?

Originally Posted by Billyray

Isaiah 53:12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

Matthew 1:21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.”

John 10:15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep.

John 17: 6*“I have revealed you to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word. 7*Now they know that everything you have given me comes from you. 8*For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them. They knew with certainty that I came from you, and they believed that you sent me. 9*I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours.

Jeff I gave you multiple verse on this will you address them for me?

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by Billyray

And how does that show that I follow Calvin instead of the Bible?

Well, LDS people believe that Joseph Smith's teachings follow the Bible, yet we get accused of following Joseph Smith instead of following the Bible. Weird, huh? So if you have a problem with that reasoning from certain anti-LDS people, then just say so and maybe both sides can stop accusing the other of following the teachings of a man instead of the teachings of scripture.

Actually it shows the flaw in your thinking.

There is no flaw in my thinking on this.

If Christ paid for every sin for every person then there wouldn't be any basis for sending anyone to Hell.

Sure there would. People are free to reject what Christ did for them, and He won't force anyone to heaven, no matter how much of a price He paid. I could pay for your plane ticket to Disneyland, but if you refuse to get on the plane, it doesn't mean that I didn't pay your way. Your failure to arrive at Disneyland won't be because I didn't pay for your ticket, it will be because you chose not to avail yourself of the marvelous gift I paid on your behalf. So the payment I made might be wasted in your case, but I still paid for it. Your refusal to admit that fact is the glaring flaw in your thinking.

You said "it's that they chose to reject what He had done for them." If they reject Christ and fail to place their faith in Him, isn't that a sin?

Christ calls ALL people to come unto Him. Refusing to heed that call is a sin, yes, and there will be consequences for it. Another flaw in your thinking is that if Christ calls all people to come to Him, but He only atoned for the sins of SOME of them, then some of the people He's calling are people who have ZERO hope of being saved, even if they obey the call. Because according to you, Jesus didn't die for those people, so there's no way they can be saved. After all, how many people who Jesus didn't die for will make it to heaven?

See the fatal flaws in your reasoning? That's evidence that Calvin's and your thinking disagree with what the Bible teaches.

[James Banta]

[nrajeffreturns;144675]Well, LDS people believe that Joseph Smith's teachings follow the Bible, yet we get accused of following Joseph Smith instead of following the Bible. Weird, huh? So if you have a problem with that reasoning from certain anti-LDS people, then just say so and maybe both sides can stop accusing the other of following the teachings of a man instead of the teachings of scripture.

Just as a quick example of the LDS being followers of Joseph Smith and not the Bible is found in his practice of plural marriage. In the D&C 20:5 Smith is called the first ELDER. And yet the Bible an elder is commanded to be the husband of one wife.. That is just a quick reference to show that mormonism ignores the teachings of the Bible as it suites them..

There is no flaw in my thinking on this.

That proof of ignoring the Bible makes your point of no effect, and shows a clear flaw in your thinking..

Sure there would. People are free to reject what Christ did for them, and He won't force anyone to heaven, no matter how much of a price He paid. I could pay for your plane ticket to Disneyland, but if you refuse to get on the plane, it doesn't mean that I didn't pay your way. Your failure to arrive at Disneyland won't be because I didn't pay for your ticket, it will be because you chose not to avail yourself of the marvelous gift I paid on your behalf. So the payment I made might be wasted in your case, but I still paid for it. Your refusal to admit that fact is the glaring flaw in your thinking.

You have also told a simple truth here, Not all, not even most, but few will trust in Jesus. mormonism teaches to rely on faith plus baptism, plus church membership (laying on of hands), plus their own efforts to endure to the end in righteousness. That isn't trusting Jesus for much, it is turning away from what He did saying "oh yes we believe in Him but we need to do the work He didn't do and then and only then will we allow Him in to make up my shortfall". That isn't relying on His grace, it's trusting in our works. It is a denial of the sufficiency of Him and the work He completed..

Christ calls ALL people to come unto Him. Refusing to heed that call is a sin, yes, and there will be consequences for it. Another flaw in your thinking is that if Christ calls all people to come to Him, but He only atoned for the sins of SOME of them, then some of the people He's calling are people who have ZERO hope of being saved, even if they obey the call. Because according to you, Jesus didn't die for those people, so there's no way they can be saved. After all, how many people who Jesus didn't die for will make it to heaven?

You are right the payment has been made.. If anyone thinks so little of the grace so freely offered there is no more sacrifice for sin and their sin remains on them.. If a person thing His grace is so cheep that we can earn it through good works, their sin remains on them.. The Bible teaches us that all that are given to Him WILL come to Him. This doesn't mean the price wasn't paid but the rejection of the gift is that much deeper a sin before Him.. They actual crucify Him again unto themselves.. They are sons of Perdition, every last one of them..

See the fatal flaws in your reasoning? That's evidence that Calvin's and your thinking disagree with what the Bible teaches.

You can't discuss Calvinism you don't understand it.. I have given you a snapshot of it. Jesus did die so that the sins of all who would come to Him could be forgiven. Unlike mormonism we actually believe that blood is required to make an atonement. Neither water or sweat has that power.. All who believe are washed in that blood. Those that turn away from the blood and to their own devices will die in their sin and the Blood can't atone for their sin.. Therefore it can be said that the blood was shed only for those that would wash in it.. Totally biblical.. You just refuse to see anything about it but your narrow mormon taught concept of what Calvinism teaches.. There is also a channel to discuss Calvinism. If you wish to attack it's doctrines go there! Defend your mormonism here.. You can't do that by the Bible!! IHS jim

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

Well, LDS people believe that Joseph Smith's teachings follow the Bible, yet we get accused of following Joseph Smith instead of following the Bible. Weird, huh?

It is not weird at all Jeff because they are completely different scenarios. I don't consider Calvin's writings when determining what I believe, if fact I have Calvin's writings in my house but I haven't read more that a hand full of pages from any of his works. His writings are not scripture and I certainly would not take them as such. Now lets look at your position which is completely different. In addition to the Bible you have writings of Joseph Smith that you hold above the Bible the teachings of the Bible i.e. the Book of Mormon and the D and C etc.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

People are free to reject what Christ did for them, and He won't force anyone to heaven, no matter how much of a price He paid.

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

Christ calls ALL people to come unto Him. Refusing to heed that call is a sin, yes, and there will be consequences for it.

But rejecting Christ and not placing faith in Him is a sin. If Christ paid for this sin--the sin of unbelief--then there would be no basis for sending that person to Hell. I think a better position for you to hold--and a more accurate one from your perspective--would be that you believe that Jesus paid for most sins for every person but not every sin for every person. Are you OK with this position?

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by Billyray

It is not weird at all Jeff because they are completely different scenarios.

No they are pretty much perfectly ****ogous. You just haven't thought it through, just like you failed to consider the "Paid ticket to Disneyland" parable that totally destroyed your Calvinistic belief that Jesus deliberately failed to atone for most people's sins, thus dooming them to a hopeless eternity in hell.

I don't consider Calvin's writings when determining what I believe

If true, it doesn't matter. Unless you are willing to accept that many people have converted to LDS based only on their reading of the Bible and then later, when they learned LDS doctrines, realized that the LDS teach the same concepts that those people had come to learn from the Bible. And thus those converts joined the LDS church as a natural, logical consequence of their reading the Bible and realizing that the LDS church is the most biblical church in the world.

In addition to the Bible you have writings of Joseph Smith that you hold above the Bible the teachings of the Bible i.e. the Book of Mormon and the D and C etc.

Who lied to you and falsely told you that I hold the writings of Joseph Smith above the Bible and the teachings of the Bible? What nonsense.

By the way, if I believe Joseph Smith to have been as much of a prophet as I believe any Bible-mentioned prophet (such as Isaiah) to have been, then my acceptance of Joseph Smith's teachings doesn't make me a follower of a man--unless you're ready to admit that by accepting the teachings of Isaiah you follow the teachings of a man instead of of scripture.

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by Billyray

But rejecting Christ and not placing faith in Him is a sin. If Christ paid for this sin--the sin of unbelief--then there would be no basis for sending that person to Hell.

You are 100% WRONG. There would still be a perfectly good reason why that person didn't get eternal life, and that reason is that the person chose to not use the ticket that Jesus paid the price for, during His atonement for the sins of mankind.

It's really weird running into a Christian who rejects the doctrine that the Savior of mankind did atone for the sins of all mankind, and instead believes that He only atoned for the sins of, say, 10% of all people. I am guessing that your belief puts you in a relatively small minority--a heterodox "cult" of modern Christendom.
It would be interesting to survey all Christians, and find out what percent of them believe as you do. Maybe I can suggest such a question to be included in the next Pew Research poll of American Christians.

I think a better position for you to hold--and a more accurate one from your perspective--would be that you believe that Jesus paid for most sins for every person but not every sin for every person. Are you OK with this position?

Why should I be OK with it?

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by Billyray

If Christ paid for every sin for every person then there wouldn't be any basis for sending anyone to Hell.

I have a question for you, Billyary. You seem to believe that Christ died only for His elect--obviously you believe that the Atonement somehow forgave the sins of those whom He died for.

If the Atonement was just for the elect--and it involved the forgiveness of their sins--then why were all men commanded to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins--following the Atonement and resurrection of Christ?

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000

If the Atonement was just for the elect--and it involved the forgiveness of their sins--then why were all men commanded to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins--following the Atonement and resurrection of Christ?

Because every single one of us is commanded to do so and every single one of us has a choice either to follow Christ or to reject him.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

You are 100% WRONG. There would still be a perfectly good reason why that person didn't get eternal life, and that reason is that the person chose to not use the ticket that Jesus paid the price for, during His atonement for the sins of mankind.

It doesn't matter what the individual choose to do or not--he is not the judge, God is the judge--and if every single sin for every single person was paid for then a fair judge would not sentence a person who was not guilty.

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

It's really weird running into a Christian who rejects the doctrine that the Savior of mankind didn't atone for the sins of all mankind, but instead He only atoned for the sins of, say, 10% of all people.

What is really weird is that a person such as yourself believes that Jesus paid for every single sin for every single person and yet punishes them anyway despite being forgiven (ie. not guilty). It would be like a person in court who gets declared not guilty of all charges and then put in prison for life without the chance of parole. This makes no sense whatsoever.

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Because every single one of us is commanded to do so and every single one of us has a choice either to follow Christ or to reject him.

Huh? What's the point of choosing to follow Christ if you're one of the people He didn't die for? What'll that get you? If you're one the people He refused to die for, then you have no hope of salvation. It was never a possibility for you. Your life was a waste from the second you were created. Choosing to follow a God who has already said "I didn't pay for YOUR sins, just for other people's sins" is a foolish idea. Why do it? It makes no sense at all. That's how I know it's a false doctrine.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

Huh? What's the point of choosing to follow Christ if you're one of the people He didn't die for? What'll that get you? If you're one the people He refused to die for, then you have no hope of salvation. It was never a possibility for you. Your life was a waste from the second you were created. Choosing to follow a God who has already said "I didn't pay for YOUR sins, just for other people's sins" is a foolish idea. Why do it? It makes no sense at all. That's how I know it's a false doctrine.

Anyone who chooses to follow Christ and place their faith in him will be saved.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

It makes no sense at all. That's how I know it's a false doctrine.

What makes no sense at all is your belief that Jesus paid for every single sin--including the sin of unbelief--for every single person and then sending people to Hell without any basis for doing so.

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post---If the Atonement was just for the elect--and it involved the forgiveness of their sins--then why were all men commanded to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins--following the Atonement and resurrection of Christ?

Originally Posted by Billyray

Because every single one of us is commanded to do so and every single one of us has a choice either to follow Christ or to reject him.

Billyray--you've missed the point. If the Atonement took care of your sins--or the elect's sins--then why were all commanded to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins?

Let's redact and examine your theology:

Originally Posted by Billyray View Post---But rejecting Christ and not placing faith in Him is a sin. If Christ paid for this sin--the sin of unbelief--then there would be no basis for sending that person to Hell.

Obviously--you believe that the payment for the sins of all men means they are forgiven of those sins--that is the critical ingredient in your theology that spurs you to ask the above question---- If Christ paid for this sin--the sin of unbelief--then there would be no basis for sending that person to Hell.

The fact is--that is false. The Atonement for all sins of all men did not forgive the first sin. It guaranteed all men the opportunity to inherit eternal life--by removing the condemnation brought upon all men due to the Fall:

Romans 5:18---King James Version (KJV)
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.


Please do notice some things here, Billyray. First--it was a free gift--Christ alone. It came to all men. And if you were to examine it--the free gift--came upon--past tense--when Christ finished it--not when we accept it.

All men are absolved--justified of life. Which means this---all men are now judged according to their own choices--and not Adam's sin--the condemnation that befell all men due to the Fall. And that was Christ's testimony:

John 5:28-29---King James Version (KJV)
28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of ****ation

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000

If the Atonement took care of your sins--or the elect's sins--then why were all commanded to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins?

We are given many commandments, which of course we should follow, but the commandments show us that we are incapable of making it on our own. They simply prove to us that we are sinners who need a Savior. We are saved when we place our trust in Christ to save us because we realize that we can't possibly keep the works of the law and make it on our own.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000

The Atonement for all sins of all men did not forgive the first sin. It guaranteed all men the opportunity to inherit eternal life--by removing the condemnation brought upon all men due to the Fall:

Sounds like you believe that Jesus paid for some sins--but not all sins-- for every person. Is that a fair ***essment of your position?

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post---If the Atonement took care of your sins--or the elect's sins--then why were all commanded to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins?

Originally Posted by Billyray

We are given many commandments, which of course we should follow, but the commandments show us that we are incapable of making it on our own.

And could you explain for us how this even touches upon my question?

Lets recap:---you believe that Christ only paid for the sins of the few--and that means their sins are forgiven. That is crucial to your argument.

My question, again---if Christ Atoning for the sins of the whole world forgave sins--then why were all commanded to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins?

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Sounds like you believe that Jesus paid for some sins--but not all sins-- for every person. Is that a fair ***essment of your position?

Cite, please. Where do you find any statement of mine that reflects that position?

As the scriptures state:


1 John 2:2---King James Version (KJV)


2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.


Billyray--you believe that means the sins of a few--the Bible states--and I believe--that means just what it states--all sins. Every one.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000

Lets recap:---you believe that Christ only paid for the sins of the few--and that means their sins are forgiven. That is crucial to your argument.

Christ paid for the sins of those who come to him by faith.

Originally Posted by dberrie2000

My question, again---if Christ Atoning for the sins of the whole world forgave sins--then why were all commanded to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins?

I don't believe that Christ PAID for every sin for every single person, that is something that you believe. Perhaps you could answer that for me because it doesn't make a lot of sense.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000

Cite, please. Where do you find any statement of mine that reflects that position?

Originally Posted by dberrie2000

The Atonement for all sins of all men did not forgive the first sin. It guaranteed all men the opportunity to inherit eternal life--by removing the condemnation brought upon all men due to the Fall:

From your statement above it doesn't look like you believe that Jesus PAID for every single sin for every single person. If he did then what is the basis for sending anyone to Hell?

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by Billyray View Post----We are given many commandments, which of course we should follow, but the commandments show us that we are incapable of making it on our own.

dberrie----And could you explain for us how this even touches upon my question?

Lets recap:---you believe that Christ only paid for the sins of the few--and that means their sins are forgiven. That is crucial to your argument.

My question, again---if Christ Atoning for the sins of the whole world forgave sins--then why were all commanded to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins?

Originally Posted by Billyray

Christ paid for the sins of those who come to him by faith.

More diversion. You believe that Christ's Atonement forgave all those sins He Atoned for--how could that be--seeing all were commanded to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins following the Atonement and Resurrection of Christ?

Billyray--before you can validate your theology--you are going to have to answer that question. It is crucial to your argument.

I don't believe that Christ PAID for every sin for every single person, that is something that you believe.

You are right--and for good reason:

1 John 2:2---King James Version (KJV)


2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.


Billyray--you have no where to run.

Perhaps you could answer that for me because it doesn't make a lot of sense.

I know--but then--I have maintained all along--that the faith alone need to differentiate between their Christianity and the true Christianity found in the Biblical text. Never did the twain meet. What is contained in the Bible is also found in the LDS church.