Limited Atonement insanity.

[kyredneck]

Wrong conclusion. Do to unbiblical reasoning.

Unbiblical reasoning? Really?

1 Corinthians 15:22, For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.

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

K. Now I see YOUR reasoning. You're saying that the 'free gift of justification of life' that came to all men due to Christ's "one act of righteousness" is the resurrection from the dead. That's not bad. And it does indeed reverse the effect of Adam's transgression. First I've read that one.

How does the 'free gift of justification of life' become synonymous with 'damnation'?

 

[Silverhair]

Do you believe the atonement for sin, made by Jesus, is limited to those who believe?

peace to you

No because the bible says He died for ungodly sinners such as you and I. Rom 5:6, 8

 

[DaveXR650]

First you call me ignorant and now I have monstrous self esteem. Well that's okay I guess, considering that I think you to be a waffling, windy, wish washy, mugwump (and a thin-skinned one at that) that lacks the intestinal fortitude to take a stand on his own, content to let other men tell him what to believe.

But I always answer your questions directly before insulting you. You haven't responded to anything I have said as anyone can see who reads this. So either refute what I have said or answer in some way or I will assume you can't. Is there anything I have said that you can articulate a disagreement with?

 

[kyredneck]

But I always answer your questions directly before insulting you. You haven't responded to anything I have said as anyone can see who reads this. So either refute what I have said or answer in some way or I will assume you can't. Is there anything I have said that you can articulate a disagreement with?

Lol, Dave, mostly you've hem hawed about what you think you remember about what some commentators have written. How should I respond to that? Except for this one by Hodge, which I would have eventually commented on, and which is totally in line with MY thinking:

Here is Hodge in his remarks section of the scripture you brought up: " No. 5 If, without personal participation in the sin of Adam, all men are subject to death, may we not hope that, without personal acceptance of the righteousness of Christ, all who die in infancy are saved?"

Do YOU hold to an age of accountability? If so, how do you back it up with scripture?

 

[DaveXR650]

But should it? We can each find prominent theologians who support our ideas.

In the end it seems we work out our own faith, even if by adopting the ideas of others who agree with us....or express ideas we like.

Of course it should. You see an example of this going on right now in the last several posts. A person looks at Romans 5:18 and desperately wants it to say a specific thing about the extent of the atonement. His view is so preconceived that he can't even benefit when he finds out that a hugely prominent theologian agrees with him on the fate of dying infants. He is so blinded by what he just knows the passage in question must be about. This is an example of willing ignorance. Lack of knowledge is perfectly alright and is part of being human. Lack of knowledge due to not even having the curiosity to hear what wiser people think is a real problem, but common in our age of the common man and high self esteem.

 

[DaveXR650]

Lol, Dave, mostly you've hem hawed about what you think you remember about what some commentators have written. How should I respond to that? Except for this one by Hodge, which I would have eventually commented on, and which is totally in line with MY thinking:

I think I answered all your questions in post 20. I don't think Romans 5:18 is relevant to the Calvinist vs Arminian view of the extent of the atonement. What else can I say. You are illustrating my point here exactly in that I tried to show you using the fact that Hodge spends much ink on Romans 5 yet you for some reason demand that I must give you an 1 sentence answer that is totally conjured out of my own mind. I don't understand why you would want my opinion when you are obviously not familiar with the commentary of anyone of real substance.

 

[JonC]

Of course it should. You see an example of this going on right now in the last several posts. A person looks at Romans 5:18 and desperately wants it to say a specific thing about the extent of the atonement. His view is so preconceived that he can't even benefit when he finds out that a hugely prominent theologian agrees with him on the fate of dying infants. He is so blinded by what he just knows the passage in question must be about. This is an example of willing ignorance. Lack of knowledge is perfectly alright and is part of being human. Lack of knowledge due to not even having the curiosity to hear what wiser people think is a real problem, but common in our age of the common man and high self esteem.

I agree we can be blinded by what we "know".

But what I am getting at is people still choose what men to believe and which ones to ignore.

What makes one "wiser"? Am I wiser because I have a masters degree in theology from an accredited seminary (than those who don't)?

I don't think so.

Why do you choose to read and appreciate the writings of John Owen, a man you never met and cannot ask questions (you can only interact with his writings insofar as you understand the media)?

Why not Wesley, or Wright, or Clarke instead of Owen?

I submit that the reason is you. You find an author or writing appealing. Perhaps you understood a writing to be a good explanation. Perhaps a writer is of a "camp" or sect you agree with.

The determining factor is not Scripture, or the writer, but you.

I don't mean that in a bad way, just a realistic way. I have books I find more dependable. But it is because of how I have evaluated the writers words against Scripture (it is because of me, and my understanding).


That said, if we ever come up with a new theology then we are most likely wrong.

 

[DaveXR650]

Do YOU hold to an age of accountability? If so, how do you back it up with scripture?

I'm glad you asked that in this way. As far as I know there are no scriptures that address the age of accountability in the sense that we are talking about here. Yet I believe in such a thing and here's why:
1. Scripture does have a few things to say in regards to responsible ages for various things in the old and new testament. It doesn't directly answer the question but it's a place to begin inquiry.
2. Plenty of scripture gives us an idea about the nature of Jesus towards little children and we can gain a lot of useful insight from that.
3. (This is the one you will hate) Prominent theologians and scholars have looked at this and explored this and many have come to the conclusion that due to the universal effects of Christs death, there is a sense in which the too young, the mentally deficient, and all such need not be in danger of Hell. I would not have the self esteem to think this true if I alone had come up with this.

This is exactly why we need theologians and Biblical scholars. If nothing

 

[JonC]

I'm glad you asked that in this way. As far as I know there are no scriptures that address the age of accountability in the sense that we are talking about here. Yet I believe in such a thing and here's why:
1. Scripture does have a few things to say in regards to responsible ages for various things in the old and new testament. It doesn't directly answer the question but it's a place to begin inquiry.
2. Plenty of scripture gives us an idea about the nature of Jesus towards little children and we can gain a lot of useful insight from that.
3. (This is the one you will hate) Prominent theologians and scholars have looked at this and explored this and many have come to the conclusion that due to the universal effects of Christs death, there is a sense in which the too young, the mentally deficient, and all such need not be in danger of Hell. I would not have the self esteem to think this true if I alone had come up with this.

This is exactly why we need theologians and Biblical scholars. If nothing

An addition is that an "age of accountability" is an important part of the Hebrew (and later, Jewish) belief. While an argument from silence, it is never challenged by Scripture.

To be fair, the belief was that all are born without guilt (conceived in sin, but innocent). Physical death was because of Adam's sin with guilt being a result of individual sins. So that may not fit in many modern theological camps.

 

[DaveXR650]

Why do you choose to read and appreciate the writings of John Owen, a man you never met and cannot ask questions (you can only interact with his writings insofar as you understand the media)?

I use him because he is a good example of a high Calvinist who wrote the definitive work on the extent of the atonement. Yet clearly taught the legitimate "offer" of the gospel along with the promise of God that anyone can come to him if he will. I think he has the stature to answer some of the more extreme claims of the modern internet Calvinists - and he is someone who they might listen to. Plus, his practical teaching on living the Christian life is very good. And you can't read everything so if you spend the time to really read Owen, you will by necessity neglect some others.

I have read Wesley and would be very content if that was all I had. I don't think his theology is as carefully articulated as the Reformers but I would gladly tell people if they hate Calvinism then stick with Wesley and they will be fine. Wright, I may get around to if I live long enough.

I submit that the reason is you. You find an author or writing appealing.

That's right. I would even go so far as to say that 90% of our theological beliefs are really an attempt to identify with and improve our stature within our chosen camp. We're people. What can I say.

 

[JonC]

That's right. I would even go so far as to say that 90% of our theological beliefs are really an attempt to identify with and improve our stature within our chosen camp. We're people. What can I say.

I agree here. But this is a problem.

Think of it this way - for decades NT Wright was "the" Pauline scholar within Reformed, Anglican....and generally any Protestant theological circle.

Now, once he said that the Reformers may have read too much of the Catholic-Protesrant issue into Paul, Wright became an outcast within those circles.

Consider....he was the one they listened to until he took issue with an a part of their system.


When we choose a "camp" we choose to elevate something over Scripture.

 

[37818]

Unbiblical reasoning? Really?



21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.



K. Now I see YOUR reasoning. You're saying that the 'free gift of justification of life' that came to all men due to Christ's "one act of righteousness" is the resurrection from the dead. That's not bad. And it does indeed reverse the effect of Adam's transgression. First I've read that one.

How does the 'free gift of justification of life' become synonymous with 'damnation'?

They are not the same. The resurrections and the gift of eternal life are two different issues.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

No because the bible says He died for ungodly sinners such as you and I. Rom 5:6, 8

Oops, he has entered the ring

 

[DaveXR650]

Consider....he was the one they listened to until he took issue with an a part of their system.


When we choose a "camp" we choose to elevate something over Scripture.

Every human group has a level of deviancy beyond which they cannot tolerate. (This makes perfect sense because a certain level of similarity is necessary for there to be any meaning to the groups existence. Exceed that and it is logically impossible for the group to function as the group was originally purposed to do.) I don't know much about Wright but I would venture to say that claiming that everyone had a wrong understanding of the Pauline epistles until he came along would definitely generate that level of deviancy in Reformed circles.

 

[JonC]

Every human group has a level of deviancy beyond which they cannot tolerate. (This makes perfect sense because a certain level of similarity is necessary for there to be any meaning to the groups existence. Exceed that and it is logically impossible for the group to function as the group was originally purposed to do.) I don't know much about Wright but I would venture to say that claiming that everyone had a wrong understanding of the Pauline epistles until he came along would definitely generate that level of deviancy in Reformed circles.

Every human group does, I agree. Thankfully as Christians we belong to a different type of human (I'd say "true human") and do not have to abide by or tolerate those tolerances (our tolerances are different).

We should always and continually test our doctrine against Scripture with the willingness to quickly abandon human "camps" and sects that fail that test.


I do not know ow enough about Wright either.

What I noticed is that he echoed a problem with Reformed theology that has been brought up as long as Reformed theology existed. It became an issue when their expert on Paul came to the same conclusions.

And while I can't go along with Wright's solution, I completely agree with the problem:

The Reformers were influenced by their circumstances, as are we all. Their understanding of Paul and the Jews match with their understanding of themselves and the Roman Catholic Church. I do not believe this is coincidence.

The Reformers thought on the grounds of ideologies prominent during the Reformation (philosophical ideas concerning justness).

And since we want to belong to a group or camp these ideas have continued on, strengthened by the correct observations of Christian error in the Catholic Church.


I didn't read Wright's book, but I read John Pipers response (Piper is one of my favorite pastors). I was disappointed in two comments he made:

1. Wright may be correct but should be dismissed because his conclusions are too difficult for the average church member to understand. I found this reason, especially since Peter complained that Paul was difficukt to understand, inadequate.

2. What right have we to question doctrines that are four centuries old. I found this readon offensive (if the Reformers thought this way there would have been no Reformation).


So I agree with Wright that there is an issue.

I also agree with you that people will continue to turn a blind eye to anything that woukd move them from their chosen sect.

 

[Silverhair]

Oops, he has entered the ring

You know you need me to stir things up a bit.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

You know you need me to stir things up a bit.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Simplify….

Genesis 18:25. Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?

 

[Brightfame52]

18 So then as through one trespass the judgment came unto all men to condemnation; even so through one act of righteousness the free gift came unto all men to justification of life. Ro 5

Christ's atonement did something for 'all men'. What does Hodge or Owen or Bunyan, etc., say this free gift of "justification of life" is?

Rom 5:18 The all here is limited to the many in Vs 19 and its the elect, who are Justified by Christs Death alone.

 

[kyredneck]

Rom 5:18 The all here is limited to the many in Vs 19 and its the elect, who are Justified by Christs Death alone.

How do you justify that conclusion from the text? You don't think you could be forcing this? Paul switched from 'the many' in v 15 to 'all men' in v 18, for no reason?

14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the likeness of Adam`s transgression, who is a figure of him that was to come.
15 But not as the trespass, so also is the free gift. For if by the trespass of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God, and the gift by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abound unto the many.
16 And not as through one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment came of one unto condemnation, but the free gift came of many trespasses unto justification.
17 For if, by the trespass of the one, death reigned through the one; much more shall they that receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one, even Jesus Christ.
18 So then as through one trespass the judgment came unto all men to condemnation; even so through one act of righteousness the free gift came unto all men to justification of life.
19 For as through the one man`s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the one shall the many be made righteous. Ro 5