Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: RnMomof7
Sorry to have to correct you again... but it's "Kewpie" doll. :-)

The fact is that Christ could not have then died for the sin of ALL men..because if He did then all men would have to be saved (as God is just and would never demand double payment for some)

I'm not sure you read my post. One does not imply the other. In my example He WOULD have "dies for ALL" but not had all apply the sacrifice. You're translating that as "only died for the ones who applied it". That only "doesn't follow" it's "incorrect".

2,400 posted on 04/07/2004 12:19:58 PM PDT by IMRight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2383 | View Replies ]


To: IMRight
I'm not sure you read my post. One does not imply the other. In my example He WOULD have "dies for ALL" but not had all apply the sacrifice. You're translating that as "only died for the ones who applied it". That only "doesn't follow" it's "incorrect".

Then He did not die for all, only the ones that applied the blood over the doorpost. If it was not applied Christ did not save them did he? So he died only for the ones that repented and believed. Otherwise you have a universal atonement .

So I ask again, If Christ died for ALL men and God ACCEPTED the sacrifice (as proved by the resurrection) .How can God demand that men pay for the sin His son already paid for. Either it was for ALL MEN without exception, or it was for those that would repent and believe.

Do you believe that when Jesus said it is finished he meant maybe it is finished? Do you believe God fore-knew those that would be saved?

2,441 posted on 04/07/2004 1:02:27 PM PDT by RnMomof7 (Broomstick Jockey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2400 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson