WHO DID JESUS DIE FOR? - by Steve Kneale (Q and A)

We evaluated the author's article here. The original article is found here.

We posted a couple of questions on Mr. Kneale's blog, and he answered. The purpose of our post is to examine his replies, which are filtered through his doctrine. This is the nature of deception, that a person interprets the Bible through his doctrine when it should be the other way around. 

Our commentary in bold.

-------------------

Q: Mr. Kneale, I notice that you are attempting to make a logical argument, not a biblical one. And it’s flawed logic. You wrote, “If he has died for all and paid for the sin of all in toto then all are necessarily saved.” This is false. “Who Jesus died for” and “those who are saved” are different categories, which means you are confusing action with effect.

But more to the point, what does the Bible teach? You didn’t quote a single Bible verse. Surely for you to defend this doctrine it must be all over the Bible?

A: You are right, I was making a logical case based on the agreed facts about what the Bible says. But, yes, it is all over the Bible. I did indeed reference several verses that were indicative, and not exhaustive, but perhaps you didn’t see those.

Q: Yes, you referenced several verses. I did see them. None of them teach Limited Atonement. If it’s all over the Bible, then make a biblical case. Quote and explain the Scriptures.

A: We might be here a while if I do that. but I can give you some indicative verses (I did do that already, but I’m happy to give a few more): (OK, here's his documentation. So we shall examine each verse to ascertain if we must understand them in the context of Limited Atonement.)

Is 53:8 – he was stricken for “my people” NB, not all people (Isaiah was a Jewish prophet, writing to Jews about Jewish things. The Messiah most certainly was stricken for Israel. "My people" is Israel. 

But since the author prefers logic rather than the Bible, let's approach this as a logical problem. Isaiah's specificity ["my people"] does not mean "only my people." Therefore, when Isaiah refers to "my people" he does not exclude other people. 

Identifying a set does not exclude or even address other things not contained in the set. "I cleaned the dishes" does not mean "I didn't clean the floor." Similarly, being stricken for "my people" does not speak to the status of other people.)

Matt 1:21 – he will save “his people” from their sins (Again, in context "His people" are the Jews.)

Matt 20:28 – the son of man came to give his life as a ransom “for many” NB: not for all (Polus [many] simply means a great number. The term does not create an excluded category. We find the same Greek word here: 

Mk. 1:34 and Jesus healed many who had various diseases. He also drove out many demons, but he would not let the demons speak because they knew who he was.

Certainly we cannot apply Mr. Kneale's logic here, which would necessarily imply that Jesus did not heal everyone when we know He did [Mt. 8:16].)

Luke 1:68 – Jesus came to redeem “his people”, not all people (Again, "His people" are the Jews. Zechariah was prophesying about the salvation of the Jews, mentioning "Father Abraham" [verse 73], which is uniquely Jewish. Now, it is certainly true that all of us are children of Abraham [Ga. 3:7], having been grafted into the vine [Ro. 11:17], but Zechariah does not have this in view, nor would he, since salvation by grace had yet to be implemented.)

John 10:11 – Jesus gives up his life for “the sheep” not the goats also (In the passage "the sheep" already belong to the Shepherd, in the sense that all Israel is the sheep of His pasture [Ps. 100:3]. Again, Israel is God's chosen people, they are His sheep, but they are gone astray [He. 3:10-11]. But the Good Shepherd came on the scene, and now the ones who are "His" sheep are those Jews who heard His voice and followed Him.) 

John 10:15 – ‘I lay down my life for the sheep.’ (Same answer. We know Jesus is talking about Jews because a little later He says, 

Jn. 10:16 I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen.

Jesus does not say this to identify a limited number of those He intends to save, but rather to teach the Jews that their lineage will not save them, and that they needed to understand that salvation is now going beyond the Jews.)

John 13:1 – speaking of his going to the cross, Jesus ‘loved his own who were in the world’ and ‘now showed them the full extent of his love’ (*Sigh.* John was telling us about the apostles. A few verses later we read: 

Jn. 13:18 “I am not referring to all of you; I know those I have chosen. But this is to fulfil the scripture: `He who shares my bread has lifted up his heel against me.’ [Psalm 41:9]

It is becoming clear that Mr. Kneale has simply tossed out a bunch of Bible references without considering their context.)

John 17:1-2 – Jesus came to give eternal life “to all those you [the Father] have given to him” (Sigh* again. Here Jesus was praying about the apostles. A few verses later: 

Jn. 17:12 While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled.

Gal 3:13 – Jesus “redeemed us” and came to be a curse “for us”, not for all in general (There are the saved and the unsaved, by definition. Most certainly it is true that the saved have been redeemed. How else, then, would Paul refer to the redeemed besides it being "us?")

 

Eph 5:25 – Christ loved the Church and gave himself up “for her” not for all (So Paul draws a comparison, that husbands should love their wives just like Christ loves His Bride and give themselves to their wives as Jesus gave Himself to His Bride. Does Mr. Kneale think that husbands should give themselves to other women? Therefore, should Christ give Himself to the unsaved?

This verse shows Jesus' particular focus on the redeemed, not to define who is excluded. Mr. Kneale yanks it out of context to serve his doctrine.)

Rom 3:25 – “God put Jesus forward as a propitiation by his blood” – that is, to placate God’s wrath against sin. Meaning there is no more anger against sin, and therefore no condemnation, which applies to all for whom Jesus was put to forward. (The verse makes no mention of a select group.) 

Rom 8:3-4 – Jesus was the sin offering, and condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law should be met “in us”, not for all (*Sigh* again. Has Mr. Kneale even read these verses? Let's quote the passage: 

Ro. 8:3-5 For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, 4 in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit. 5 Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires.

Who is "us?" Simple: Those who do not live according to the flesh but rather by the desires of the Holy Spirit. Paul wasn't writing about a limited people who are saved, he was contrasting those of the flesh vs. those of the Spirit.)

Rom 8:31-39 – ‘gave himself up for us all’ necessarily refers to those Paul refers to in the rest of these verses otherwise those very verses lose all their rhetorical power. (We will simply respond, no, it doesn't.)

I could go on, but this is probably enough. (Not a single verse is an example of Limited Atonement.)