1. Rule #1. No one is obligated to post, responded to a post, or otherwise even think of another peson – your just not that interesting, no matter what you think.

2. He has responded – either in this post, another post, or somewhere else, and he is not interested in rehashing a debate dealt with in another time and place

3. Your mother dresses you funny

4. He’s a coward

5. Your right, but the TR will take back his secret decoder ring if he fesses up. It took him years to get that ring, and he won’t give up his precious.

I am betting on 1 and or 2, but 3 is not impossible, although it may have nothing to do with his responding or not.

Now, why would Frank refuse to answer my question? There can be only one reason. He knows that if he were to get that ball rolling, he would be trapped by his own false theology – that the Lamb of God did not in fact take away the sin of the world. So rather than come to the light and have his deeds exposed, Frank (like all false teachers and hypocrites) chooses to remain in darkness. And in darkness he shall remain.

I repent of that attitude.

Luther continues, “For the Lamb itself preaches to us, ‘Behold how I bear your sins!’ However, no one will accept it. If we believed and accepted it, no one would be damned. What more is the Lamb to do? He says, ‘You are all condemned, but I will take your sins upon myself. I have become the whole world. I have incorporated all people since Adam into my person.’ Thus he wants to give us righteousness in exchange for the sins we have received from Adam. And I should reply, ‘I will believe that, my dear, dear Lord, the Lamb of God, has taken all sins upon himself.’ Still the world will not believe and accept this. If it did, no one would be lost… Refusal to believe this is not Christ’s fault, it is mine. If I do not believe this, I am doomed. It is for me to say simply that the Lamb of God has borne the sin of the world. I have been earnestly commanded to believe and confess this, and then also to die in this faith. You may say, ‘Who knows whether Christ also bore my sin? I have no doubt that he bore the sin of St. Peter, St. Paul, and other saints; these were pious people, O that I were like St. Peter or St. Paul.’ Don’t you hear what St. John says in our text: ‘This is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.’ And you cannot deny that you are also a part of this world.’ For if you are in the world, and your sins form a part of the sins of the world, then the text applies to you.” (Luther’s Works, Vol. 22, pp. 162-169)

You still didn’t provide an example. The verses you provide are directed at either believers, of whom the statement “for our sins” would be true, or all people, stating the extent is beyond just the Jews.

Even John 3:16 qualifies the statement (as Brad said) when it says that “whoever BELIEVES IN HIM should not perish”

You have to look at the context to see who the “all” and “our” refer to. Is it your position that whenever the Bible says “our” or “all”, it means every single person in the world and the ones to come? So what do you make of “our” in 2 Thess 2:14 and “all” in 1 John 2:20?

How about examining actual sermons where unbelievers are spoken to and the become believers. Did Peter say “Jesus died for your sins, so believe” in Acts 2, or Paul say the same thing in Acts 17?

You’re making a large jump that I don’t think you are seeing. You are assuming that every instance of “our” “you” “all”, etc. refers to every single person in the world (and curiously when it fits into your presupposed meaning of the text). That simply is not the case and if you were consistent in thinking that way, you would make a hash of the Bible. You have to let the context determine the extent of these words.

For instance, “our conversation is 3 responses long now”. In the context “our” refers to me and you. If you came with the presupposition that I’m talking to everyone all the time, then in your interpretation, “our” would refer to the world of people, and it would be incorrect.

One last verse: Romans 5:18 states “Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. ”

Paul is making a parallel between Adam and Christ, and the action of each actually did something (not theoretically, or made it possible, but actually accomplished something) for all men that are referred to.

Adam ->action condemns all men; all men are condemned apart from themselves because of Adam’s action

Jesus ->action justifies all men; all men are justified apart from themselves because of Jesus’ action

Are you saying that in both of these “all” means all men without distinction? If so, you saying that every person is justified before God and we know that’s not the case. I say that, in the context, “all” means all who are in Adam/Christ.

I find it very instructive that in all these exchanges, including the Debateblog exchange, you have never once produced any verse that even comes close to saying what you want everyone else to say.

Now why is that, I wonder?

Who would believe that men (who call themselves Christians) could become so hardened and so ungrateful as to actually contend with someone who is simply trying to tell them that Christ suffered and died for their own sins? But such is the day we are in. “There shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them” (2 Pet. 2:1).

Jonah was right, “They that observe lying vanities forsake their own mercy.” (Jonah 2:8).

That was an awesome promise. I hope when you finish, you will say something like, “And now, for my next trick…!”

I am quivering in my boots

@Frank – Can you, without knowing anything about me and without any qualifications (such as Brad provides), proclaim to me, Stuart Wood, that Jesus Christ died for my sins personally? “yes” or “no”.

I would have no problem you telling stuart any of the following

- we have had this discussion, I am not rehashing it here because you want to chase your hobby horse. Respond to the post or do it on your own blog.

or

- your wrong both theologically and historically, heres why

or

- if your going to call me a liar, your posts are going to be deleted.

Those all work for me. You could even invoke rule number 1.

Do you not believe that salvation is conditioned upon faith in the gospel? Every Calvinist I have ever heard of will gladly affirm that Jesus saves all who will believe the gospel.

Your misunderstanding or misapplication of the Calvinistic teaching of the atonement is glaring. All one has to do to see your error is to flip the question and say, “Stuart, do you believe that the universal atonement saves all men, yes or no?”

And yes, Frank can speak for himself. But the point of commentary I thought was for everyone to have the chance to get in on the conversation. If not, why not just email Frank?