2 Corinthians 5:14-15 and the Atonement

Great ... another repetition of what Calvinists already believe. Why do you keep repeating this stuff as if it is new or revolutionary? Everyone here, who has been paying attention, knows that Calvinism already believes this.

 

Er umm.. can you say "limited atonement"???

Why does a Calvinist ask "why" (an Arminian would argue for universal atoning sacrifice)??

The point of the text "remains". Christ "died" (Atoning sacrifice) for all. The emphasis on is on the dying (sacrifice - suffering) not on the resurrection or High Priestly work of Christ in heaven "for us". The text zeroes in on the purpose and scope of the sufferings of Christ who "tasted the sufferings of death FOR EVERY MAN" Heb 2.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Icthus,

You know very well that my head is not buried in the sand, nor am I hard of understanding. I have cogently and correctly answered virtually everything you have put out here. I have shown time and time again that you simply do not know what you are talking about. You are embarrassing yourself with those who do.

As for what Dabney actually says, it is hard to tell. I don't have him here. I do know from reading your quote that you quoted only a portion, and quoted a conditional sentence (if ...). Given your track record for quotes, there is no reason to think that you have accurately presented Dabney's position. You would do yourself well to go get an education somewhere so that you can learn about theology, Calvinism, and perhaps most importantly, how to carry on an ethical debate. Your tactics are deplorable, even worse than your knowledge. Please start taking this advice that I and others have offered many times. Go learn what you are talking about, and then come and talk about it.

 

Here is what Dabney said, from the Conclusion under the texts on a "seeming universality." (Shouldn't Icthus have learned from the word "seeming" where Dabney was going with this?)

What do we find?

1. Dabney believed in limited atonement with respect to the elect.
2. Dabney said that the death of Christ did have benefits for the non-elect.

What is ironic about this? You didn't have to read Dabney to find it out. It is exactly what I and others have been saying here all along.

What else do we find out?
1. Icthus misrepresented Dabney's position, by citing a conditional as if it were an actual. That is unethical argumentation, to make someone appear as if they believe something they don't.
2. Icthus did not fully study his own link of Dabney's work. If he had, he would have seen the above paragraph and known that he drew a wrong conclusion from it.
3. Icthus is repeating what he did before, when he cited Charles Hodge. He failed to put the quote in the context of Hodge's article and Hodge's theology, with the result that Icthus made Hodge appear as if he believed something he did not.

This is unacceptable. When you present an argument, present it as it really stands. Never take someone's words and try to use them to make someone appear as believing something they don't. That is unethical and dishonest. If you cannot support your position with their words fairly, then do not use them.

 

Yes, I was meant to be a pastor. And the largest part of my job is doctrine and teaching. I have devoted my life to it, and thus, it is not hard to pick out the weaknesses of your arguments and even the unfortunate falseness of them. I have tried to deal with you gently and kindly, and even now, have responded only to the facts and in a manner that does not address your personally, but rather your argumentative techniques. I have been patient and gentle with you, probably for far longer than I should have. But the fact remain that in this instance (and several others) you were dishonest and unethical and you owe this forum an apology. This is not the first time this has happened.

But you just did it again: You said their own words on Scriptures that do not support this doctrine. This is dishonest and unethical because you took a few words out of the context of their whole writing. Their writing shows that the words of Scripture do indeed supported the Calvinistic doctrine of the atonement. You lifted one phrase out of a whole section, and the whole section tells the whole story.

I have been more than willing to let the Scriptures speak for themselves and you don't like that. You don't like someone who will stand up and go toe to toe with you and refute what you say with such ease and clarity. You are not used to someone who knows more than you do about what Calvinists believe. And you have not been able to handle it.

In the future, do not misrepresent what people say. If you disagree, then disagree. That's fine. But realize that what Dabney said is the position known as limited atonement. Your problem is that you won't accept what limited atonement actually means.

 

Perhaps you could begin by telling me where I said you misquoted him.

 

I said you misrepresented him, which is why I used the word "misrepresent" rather than "misquote." Your quote was fine. But in it, you made Dabney appear as if he rejected Limited Atonement, when he fact he does not reject limited atonement.

His statement was a conditional ... If we make it mean something, then something ... He rejects that conditional understanding. Whether he is right or wrong, is irrelevant. You cited him perfectly ... probably cut and paste. But in so doing, you made it appear that Dabney does not believe in Limited Atonement on the basis of that quote. Yet clearly, Dabney does believe in what Calvinists call Limited Atonement, and his interpretation of those verses is completely consistent with limited atonement.

 

You just did it again. You said that Dabney says this passage does not teach limited atonement. Yet that is not what he said, that I know of. What he essentially said was that sort of application of a restricted meaning of "all" will not work here and the "candid" can see that it teaches a universal effect of the atonement. He did not say that this passage does not teach limited atonement. You have misdefined limited atonement. What he said is what limited atonement affirms.

Icthus, learn what you are talking about and stop this nonsense. Here it is again: Limited atonement teaches that redemption is applied only to the elect. Limited atonement teaches that Christ's death does have benefits for the non-elect; it simply doesn't save them. There are only so many ways to say that but I keep hoping one of them will make sense to you. Let's move on now.

 

Pastor Larry,
Please provide a concise definition of "the elect". Exactly what does the term include, and what does it exclude.

 

All we need to do is let the Bible define it. God defines the elect as those whom He chose to salvation from the beginning of the world (Eph 1:4; 2 Thess 2:13). If you have further questions about that, discuss it in another thread. This thread is about another topic.

 

Dabney wrote in a time when hypercalvinism was a much larger problem in the church than it is now. (As did Spurgeon, BTW.) His argument here is primarily against the hypercalvinists, who had the idea (among other ones) that there were no benefits whatsoever in the atonement for the unelect, and that there was no universal call of the gospel, etc.

There are a few hypercalvinistic groups now, but unlike it was in Dabney's day, they are fringe groups. You will probably go your whole life and never meet a true hypercalvinist.

You will, however, meet a lot of calvinists.

 

Strictly from proper use of the english language perspective, Pastor Larry is correct in his interpretation of Dabney's words. The use of "seems" is vitally important to the quote. In fact, I studied journalism for awhile, and one of our most basic lessons was about this very word. We were taught, "never write, "this seems to," or "he seemed," because the word seem, when used properly, indicates that what something appears to be on the surface is not what it really is.

 

It is not only the word "seems" ... it is his whole conclusion where he plainly states he believes in the traditional Calvinistic view of limited atonement.