Limited Atonement... Unanswerable question.

Well, Ray, if it wasn't for those "spiritually struggling, myopic Reformation leaders" you would most likely still be saying your "Hail Mary's" and kissing the Pope's ring.

Ken
A Spurgeonite

 

It’s funny that the non-cals always focus on the use of the word ‘world’ in 1 John 2:2 as if that is supposed to be the nail in the coffin for Particular Redemption. I have always found that strange when you take into account the fact that often times in the New Testament, especially scripture written by John, the word ‘world’ rarely ever refers to every person that has ever lived or ever will live.

Not only that, the same author of 1 John 2:2 is the same author of John 11:49-52 which is a perfect parallel passage. Are the non-cals just going to simply ignore this?

Joh 11:49 And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all,
Joh 11:50 Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.
Joh 11:51 And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;
Joh 11:52 And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.

And last but not least, why is it that the non-cals focus on the word ‘world’ in 1 John 2:2, but they never seem to put much emphasis on the word ‘propitiation’? In order for the word ‘world’ to refer to every single person that has ever lived or ever will live you must completely change the biblical definition of propitiation. Was Christ the propitiation for Hitler’s sin? If so, why is Hitler in hell?

Calvinist’s exegesis of 1 John 2:2 is completely consistent the rest of scripture. We don’t have to change the meaning of ‘propitiation’ and we don’t have to be inconsistent in our exegesis of the word ‘world’. Non-cals have a much bigger problem than the Cals do. They must explain how Christ can be the ‘propitiation’ for the sins of every person in the whole world yet not every person in the whole world is justified. They simply can’t do it without changing the meaning of ‘propitiation’.

Hey Ray, can you provide us with your definition of propitiation?

 

Good point. The idea of "whole world" really meaning "whole world" works in 1John 2 since Christ's atonement is not limited.

But should we limit the scope of "whole world" in 1John 5? Do we need to do that? In Ephesians 1:1-5 we find that even the saints were dead in transgression and sin and were walking according to the dictates of the "prince of the power of the air".

In John 15:33 we find that "in this world you have trouble".

In chapter 17 we see that we are IN the world - but not "of it".

I think it is safe to leave it as "whole world" even in 1John 5 - showing that the power of the evil one is indeed applied in one manner or the other over all living on earth until the Return of Christ.

But the bigger problem for 5 point Calvinism is that the "we/us/our" 2nd person of 1John 2 - applies to both elect Jews and Gentiles even by Calvinist standards - but "needs to be limited" to just the elect Jews for the sake of Calvinism's model -- ONLY because the text ADDS "not for OUR sins only but for those of the Whole World".

Hard to miss - that the same scope is accepted by Calvinists as being true (if both elect Jew and Gentile confess their sins then both are forgiven 1John 1:9 and in fact both have an advocate with the Father 1John 2:1 etc) - but in 1John 2 they "need" the restriction or else it directly refutes 5-point Calvinism.

In Christ,

Bob

[ September 01, 2002, 06:26 AM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

You think this is talking about people?? I don't. I think it is talking about the material world we live in.

You think this is talking about people?? I don't. IT is talking about the material world and its system and worldview. In other words, you have just given two passages that refute your understanding of world as being all people wihtout exception.

"Our" is John and his readers. The world are those believers who are not his readers. It's that simple. The key word that you ignore is propitiation. It means satisfaction. Christ is the satisfaction of God's wrath for teh elect. He is not the satisfaction of God's wrath for the non-elect.

 

And again, we have the verbosity you accused me of. Just to point it out. You've provided no proof of such irrational arguments - only stated them as such. Calling an orange an apple doesn't make the orange something it is not.

You stated basically that you needed not to answer them since you feel that wise people - or the majority of people - would agree with you. That is, indeed, argument to the people.

But a quote for the wrong reason is still still wrong - doesn't matter who you're quoting. Even Satan quoted the Lord God...

Anything used to slander or disparage another person is an ad hominem attack. (which is different from an argument ad hominem)

So skipping arguments is disproving it?

Name them.

Again, name it.

Exactly! That's it! It's not a conditional statement. It is an interrogative. Such things mean more in the Greek than you are understanding in the English. By moving it from an "if...then" statement to the interrogative used, it removes the NECCESITY that you are speaking of.

You've been shown the translation, and you've been shown where to look if you care to look at it through the eyes of the original language. Again, ask someone with knowledge in Greek the difference between a conditional statement and an interrogative (there are also four different classes of conditional statements in the language.) In the Greek language, there is no necessity between the first part and the second part. Thus, your argument fails.

You say,
"Throughout your arguments I have shown your logical fallacies, to which you fail to respond. That's okay with me, though - I think it is good that others read this exchange. Perhaps then some may see how much the evidence stacks AGaINST limited atonement."

Read what I said again. I'm not using the power of the people to sway them over to my side. I'm not using any kind of majority to state a claim to my case. I merely state that my position is so clear and meritous that I wish others to examine the evidence so they can conclude what I have. In a debate, it would be similar to the statement, "because of all of the evidence I've shown, it will be evident to the judging panel that a negative vote would be correct." Perfectly in step with classical argumentation and debate.

Examine my posts and you will see that my arguments against you have been strictly on the debate side - not the personal side...and the burden of proof is on you to decide.

 

God offers salvation to the group - some take it, some don't.

The burden of proof is on you to provide a workable body of Scripture.

Isaiah 41:8-9. He states that he loves and has chosen the entire nation of Israel here. Were they all saved? Indeed, from Isaiah 41 through the next several chapters, God refers to the nation of Israel as "chosen." Isaiah 45 even says these words, "For the sake of Jacob my servant, of Israel my chosen, I summon you by name and bestow on you a title of honor, though you do not acknowledge me." Chosen though they don't acknowledge. Sounds like they're not SAVED!

See above Scripture to the contrary.

ditto.

Haha! You think that Esau is representative of the Jews? Rad Malachi, chapter 1! Galatians 4 is encouraging the Galatians to give up trying to live under the law and live for Christ instead. verse 21 states the audience: "Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says?" The "you" were already saved!

Okay. Can I give you a clue that may completely baffle you? As has often been pointed out by other commentators, it is possible on grammatical grounds to take the perfect passive participle katertismena ["having been prepared," lit., "having been put in order"] in 9:22 in a reflexive sense, "having put themselves in order," in which case the role of these vessels of wrath in determining their own destruction is further highlighted.) A relexive tense in the Greek tense means that the object and the subject are the same - more specifically, the object is doing the action to himself. Sure makes things sound like Jeremiah...

Sounds like a group is elected to being shapen by the potter.

Did you even read Jeremiah 18? "It's not of him that willeth" is EXPRESSLY stated in the 12th verse, where men will say, "It's hopeless!" A great essay on this, and interpretation of the whole chapter can be found here: http://www.geocities.com/bobesay/electionromans4.html

That you fail to answer them is evidence of your own "obduracy" - (which means hardness for those out there without use of a thesaurus.)

 

Bob,

Unless you are a universalist, you do believe in a limited atonement. Don't you believe that the atonement is only applied, or only effective, if a person comes to Christ? Don't you believe that the effectiveness of the atonement is limited by your free will? Isn't that what your theology teaches?

In 1 John 5:19, there is a contrast so that "world" does not mean everybody. The contrast is between "those of God" and "the whole world" that is under Satan's power. The children of God are no longer under Satan's control. We sin only because we are still in unredeemed fleshly bodies, not because we are still under Satan's control. If you have any doubt that this is so, just read the preceding verse.

(1 John 5:18 NKJV) We know that whoever is born of God does not sin; but he who has been born of God keeps himself, and the wicked one does not touch him.

Ken
A Spurgeonite

 

Well I'll grant you that using that definition for the person of the 2nd part in 1John 2 is more defensible. But in John 17 we find that John anticipates "All those who believe through their word" as the "reader".

And so IF you include all believers as 'And not for OUR sins only but for those of the Whole World" - then indeed Whole World DOES mean Whole World - both of those who believe and of those who do not.

The same World that is the "ALL mankind" of Romans 5 upon whom the sentence of death fell through Adam - is the same "ALL" and "everyone" listed in Romans 5 that benefit from the death of Christ. It is to the benefit of all that the Gospel of salvation is offered to all through the blood of Christ's atoning sacrifice. Not for our sins only, but for those of the Whole World.

In Christ,

Bob

[ September 02, 2002, 07:58 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

The concept of "limited atonement" is that Christ did NOt pay for ALL the sins of ALL the lost. Rather He paid only for SOME of the lost - and had no concern for the rest.

So no - I do not believe that or any part of it.

But if you are offering to "redefine" limited atonement to mean "paid for all the sins of all the world - but makes acceptance of that payment a condition for being saved" - I am happy to agree that such a "redefinition" is more acceptable and will fit in the 1John 2 text "better" than "Whole world but not the many of Matt 7 who are in another world - and consist of those whom he cared nothing for".

Lets give it the test and see if that redefinition flies. We all agree that "Those of God" go to heaven. Is there any text of scripture saying "The Whole World Godes to Heaven"?

We all agree that "those of God are born again" - do you have text showing that scripture uses your definition for whole world and says "The Whole World is born again"?

We all agree that Christ will come and take the saints up in the air - to heaven with Him - do you have any scripture using your definition of Whole World that says "Christ will come back and take the Whole World to heaven"?

If so -- you have made your point - and I concede it. If not - then we only hvae the "proof" that the Calvinist model "needs" that redefinition - but we have no more support for it than the fact that the model is in need of finding it.

 

Sorry, Bob, but you lost me in your previous post as I don't understand what you are trying to say about 1 John 5:19.

Are you trying to say that Christians are still under the control and sway of Satan no differently than lost people are? That there is no contrast presented in 1 John 5:19?

Christian regards,

Ken
A Spurgeonite

[ September 01, 2002, 08:52 PM: Message edited by: Ken Hamilton ]

 

Not at all. That is Christ's high priestly prayer in which he prays for all of those who will believe through their (their apostles) word--probably message. Even in this, it is all those that believe, something perfectly consistent with limited atonement.

But Romans 5 never says anything about "offering" but rather about becoming sinners and becomeing righteous. Look up the thread on this topic and review the theology. This passage is about modus operandi of becoming sinners and becoming righteous. It says that all who are in Adam become sinners in the same way that all who are in Christ become righteous -- by imputation.

 

Ray,

I John 2:2 has been sufficiently explained. Why do you keep posting the same arguments over and over again? John 11:52 states that Jesus was going to gather ALL THE CHILDREN OF GOD who were scattered abroad; same author, same meaning. Since you seem to be having trouble comprehending anyone on this board, I submit you into the hands of A.W. Pink! Here is his interpreation, and the right one, of I John 2:2.

http://www.sovereign-grace.com/pink/appendix-d.htm

In your own convenience, you may want to check this site out also. It gives the explanation for EVERY Bible text misused by Arminians to support their heresies.

http://www.planetkc.com/puritan/articles.htm

[ September 02, 2002, 11:27 AM: Message edited by: Primitive Baptist ]

 

I really wish that an expert on argumentation and debate were to read the link. Pink continually begs the question - assuming his conclusion in the premise. The link is filled with a prioris. I would encourage those of both persuasions to read the essay carefully to see if they can find all of them.

 

I suppose it is possible that your position on Calvinism is forcing you to argue that John could not see that while writing down the words of John 17 He was in fact showing that the words of the Apostles would be read by all Christians in all ages.

But I would say if that is the case - if you are being forced to make that argument - it is unfortunate.

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

Pastor Larry posts

That would be nice as a rewrite of the text - but as it is it says in fact

The redefinition of "all" into "all those that eventually end up being selected out of the many that were under the sentence of death" - is not present in the text.

But I understand why the model of Calvinism "needs" it to be there and I can appreciate the attempt to try to get it in there. I just think the task is a bit daunting given the actual content of the text.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob Posts from 1John using the definition that G4G provides such that "you/us/we" refers to elect Jews and "The Whole World" is Paul's way of expanding the scope out to include the elect Gentiles. (At least that "appears" to be what G4G is arguing)

I stand corrected - my quote above then should have read --

1 My little children, I am writing these things to you (elect JEWS ONLY) so that you (elect JEWS ONLY) may not sin. And if anyone (among you elect JEWS reading this letter) sins, we (elect JEWS ONLY) have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous;

I hope that correction is satisfactory in representing how you "Decode" each of those words in 1 John to get "whole world" to mean 'elect Gentiles' instead of "whole World".

In Christ,

Bob

 

You realize, that if you take this statement and make "all men" mean every person that has ever lived, then you have every person being justified--every one has eternal life.