Limited Atonement... Unanswerable question.

I come out of Arminian theology. I have done a lot of reading on both sides of the fence.

As fro exegetical ineptitude, that you don't see unconditional election is, to me, a testament to the fact that your words are the pot callilng the kettle black.

 

And if you figure out what this verse refer to (where it is written), you will easily see that God is not referring to individuals, but groups - the group known as Israel was chosen...just as God chose the Church.

[quot0e]This passage could not more explicitly deny that election is based upon anything the recipients would do, nor therefore can it be based upon any FOREKNOWELDGE of the same. You might as well affirm that MY words affirm your doctrine as Pauls. Were I an apostle, doubtless many would do just that.[/quote]

Election is based upon God foreknowing the CHurch, not the individuals. Keep reading the passage until you get to chapter 11 - then it will start making sense!

And then examine this passage's parallel to a passage in Jeremiah, talking about the potter. It states quite openly that if God declares wrath on a nation, and then the nation repents, he will have mercy on them. If God declares mercy, and they rebel, then He will show wrath. So when he makes them vessels of honor or dishonor, guess who chose what to be shaped as? It's amazing what you can find if you escape your Scriptural myopia.

 

Nah. They were good points. I notice that you completely evaded the scripture I provided and my detail of your logic.

And what shall we say to these words? Sounds like it is not me who is being verbose. I gave you a sound argument, which you choose not to rebut.

Argument ad populem. Logical fallacy.

Oh, I answered it alright, but I'll be glad to answer it again - this time with the exetical explanation you seem to enjoy.

Believe it or not, but there is no necessity here - there is no conditional construct found in the Greek. The words used are "pos oux" (or how now). Pos indicates an interrogative, NOT a conditional statement. In English, you read it as condirional - IF Christ died for me, THEN I must receive all things. However, such a necessary condition doesn't exist in the Greek language. Perhaps a more literal translation would be: "He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all-- will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things?" If you disagree with this, please show your own exegetical work. (and I've got two years of Greek under my belt at a conservative Christian university, in which I got the highest marks all four semesters, just in case you have doubts about my validity...)

Let's also examine the context of the chapter, shall we? The entire chapter here refers to Christians, from the very first verse to the verse in question. Since the entire chapter was referred to Christians, it makes since that Paul, in speaking of Christ's death, speaks of it merely in relation to them. There was no reason for him to contemplate those who were not Christians. Therefore, to concude that Paul deliberately left out the non-elect is not warranted. To read him as meaning that God delivered Christ for all of us who believe and for no one else, is injecting into the words from what is not there - thus an argument from silence. One cannot argue in positive support of a point when what is being argued is not in the grammar, language, or structure of the text.

You've ignored my 10-15 Scriptures that deny your point. You're resting more on two Greek words than the entirety of Scripture. It reminds me of the OJ trial - we've got mounds of evidence on one side, yet Cochran is waving his hands like crazy, trying to get the jury's attention to ignore the overwhelming proof of OJ's guilt.

Read above. Your whole point rests upon a conditional statement that is not even there! You have been shown a myriad of proofs against your contention, yet you hold on to one phrase in English that isn't there in the original language! It is a shame that you have resorted to ad hominem attacks. 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.

(BTW, you know Calvin believed in unlimited atonement, don't you? Just a historical curiosity many Calvinists do not know about... Read his commentaries on John, galatians, and Romans, and 3.1.1 in his word Institutes...)

 

Easy.

1. Did God choose Israel? (yes - Read his covenant with Abraham)

2. Did God NOT choose the Gentiles? (yes - Israel was his particular chosen group)

3. Was Ahab a child of God? (no - read about his life in I Kings 16)

4. Was Ahab an Israelite? (yes - I Kings 16:29)

5. Therefore, Ahab was a member of a group that was chosen, in spite of not being chosen himself.

See the difference? We can also look at Rahab, who was not a Jew, but is still mentioned as a woman of faith in the New Testament.

Why would you say Paul takes such a direct quotation from Jeremiah then? Was he confused? Or does he have a point that you refuse to see? If God's judgement or mercy depends on a person's actions in the OT, why does "I have mercy on whom I will have mercy" mean something different in the NT, especially when this is so expressly paralleled?

Way too many questions for you to answer for your point to stand. Way too many.

 

If Romans 8 were the only text of scripture dealing with the scope of the atoning sacrifice - you would indeed have a solid argument.

The problem is - that when we debate the "scope of the Atonement" the bounds are set - not by the most limiting statements - but by the most expansive ones. Scope is always determined by the most expansive limits.

So when you get to "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins and not for our sins only but for those of the Whole World" 1John 2:2 - you have in fact "an expansive" case pushing the boundary out to the limit.

Romans 5 does the same thing - the same "all men" that fall due to sin are the same "all" that are benefitted by the sacrifice of Christ according to the text - same author, same context, same word.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Exactly, Bob! That's what I was trying to say with "He died for me" NOT equating to "He died for me and only me."

 

I disagree. Limits are set by what limits the particular item.

If I say, "Bring me the pencils, seven of them." I want seven pencils not all of the pencils. That my initial statement is the more expansive one does not mean I want all of the pencils.

Ken
A Spurgeonite

 

But if you were to say, bring me all the pencils, seven of them, and there were more than seven pencils, you would have a direct contradiction on your part. Since we would agree that the Bible doesn't contradict itself, how do we read that he died for all men? To state that this is not expansive is to either read in the text what is not there, or deny its clear meaning.

 

I agree with Ken!... If Christ died for ALL MEN... Then ALL MEN are saved!... Then ALL MEN are going to Heaven!... The only ones in Hell will be the Devil and his Angels!... Though God said Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated... He really didn't hate Esau... He just loved him less than Jacob!... When Jesus told those ruling Jews that their father was the Devil and his works they would do... He wasn't refering to them personally but to the work they were doing... Because Jesus died for ALL MEN!... The non-elect are not men but the Devil and his Angels even though the word of God teaches the doctrine of Election... Same as the sheep and goats... The goats being again the Devil and his Angels... Who are his non-elect I can't tell you I am not priviledge to knowledge of the Godhead but this I do know because scripture states nothing less... "JESUS WILL SAVE ALL HIS BLOOD BOUGHT CHILDREN!"... and no one else and that brethren is the expanse of the limits!... Brother Glen

[ August 31, 2002, 01:16 PM: Message edited by: tyndale1946 ]

 

If anyone is interested in a thorough treatment on the subject of whether John Calvin actually taught particular redemption(which he did, Scott ), go to

www.the-highway.com/articleJuly02.html

Ken
A Spurgeonite

[ August 31, 2002, 03:27 PM: Message edited by: Ken Hamilton ]

 

No, I found the quote but not the source. So I have changed my reply to Scott's misrepresentation of Calvin and included the URL of a very thorough article that proves that John Calvin did teach particular redemption. Unfortunately, he never used the term "limited atonement", so the article will probably not satisfy detractors of the doctrines of God's grace, but Calvin was writing to uphold the truth of God's Word, not to defend himself against the misunderstandings of 21st Century critics.

After all, there are men like Dave Hunt who are lying about Charles Spurgeon's teaching on particular redemption even though Spurgeon used the terminology they are familiar with.

Ken
A Spurgeonite

 

G4G,

The problem is indeed a sticky one and I appreciate your willingness to go out on a limb in the case of 1John 2 and offer an explanation.

Lets take a look at the "US" definition of "JEws only" in that pasage and see what happens.

Already the text is made problematic by restricting the promise/scope to "elect Jews only" - elect JEWS ONLY have an ADVOCATE when ANYONE sins.

The restriction seems to compromise the entire snese of the text.

The redefinition for "us" and "we" (- person of the first part context) that is required by the Calvinist model seems to be unworkable.

Indeed the language of the text is not demanding that redefintion - but the model of Calvinism "needs it".

The attempt to consistently make "WE/US/OUR" refer to ELECT JEWS ONLY and "WORLD" refer to "ELECT JEWS and GENTILES ONLY" in 1John 2 - is not workable for this book - nor for this chapter.

[ August 31, 2002, 05:47 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

(1 John 5:18-19 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. {19} We know that we are of God, and the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one.

Bob,

Since you are looking at the logic of words and their use in Scripture, do you think, based on your understanding of 1 John 2:2 that you expressed, that "world" in 1 John 5:19 means everybody as you say "world" means everybody in 1 John 2:2?

Ken
A Spurgeonite

 

Bob Ryan,

Your explanation was refreshing.

Who any longer believes in a God who only loves His hand picked persons? Answer: The spiritually, struggling, myopic, Reformation leaders and those who still try to teach Reformation Theology. Why did the Apostle John go to such trouble to say that the atonement was not only for the redeemed church, but also the rest of the inhabitants of His created world? [I John 2:2] Answer: Because it is God's truth that He desires to impart into the lives of His people. Christ's salvation is made available to all human beings if they only savingly, believe in Jesus. [I Timothy 2:4 & 6] His ransom was for who? Answer: vs. 6.