Limited Atonement... Unanswerable question.

[Bible-belted]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
Latreia,

All of my posts in the past are a documentation of the truth of the first four points of Arminian Theology. Review at your leisure.

Some of us have taken away any misconceptions about Romans chapter nine being a verification of unconditional election. This view only portrays the ineptitude of Augustine and Calvin as to their abilities at Biblical exegesis.

My message is to the general views of Calvinists. I cannot tailor my remarks to each group of Calvinists.

Much of Calvinism casts very, bad aspersions on the Personhood of Almighty God as suggested in my last post.

Ray Berrian, Th.D.

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.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by grateful4grace:

13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

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 Paul continues:
19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

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.

 

[grateful4grace]

Dear Sir,

I began to answer all the minutia of your two posts, but they are really nothing but confusion, absurdities, and evasions. The vain glorious pleasure of demonstrating the foolishness of your argumentation is popped by the shere verbosity of your reply. Wisdom is justified of her children, and these, I'm confident, see it clearly enough.... I can give light. To give eyes is up to the Sovereign grace of God.
But the whole point is summed up in the following paragraph, and it completely destroys everything you said in all your contentions, and it was one of the several paragraphs that you made no reply to other than to rail at, or contradict without providing any argument for your contradiciton. So for the record... here it is:

You put contingency between the death of Christ and the benefit to men... BUT THAT IS THE WHOLE ARGUEMENT OF THE TEXT THAT THERE IS NO SUCH CONTINGENCY!!!!!! How shall they NOT obtain salvation, is the claim of Paul about the power of the cross! "He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, HOW SHALL HE NOT with him also freely give us all things?" What part of "HOW SHALL HE NOT" don't you understand? The text denies your EXACT claim, and puts NECESSITY between the work of Christ and the BENEFIT. THATS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE TEXT!
And this was the point I was making in my first question, which NNE has attempted to answer yet, but which you here wholly admit.

If you wish to carry on some semblance of an intelligent conversation, why don't you provide an answer to this, and keep yourself to the grammar of the text in question. You call this proof texting. I call that shameless prevarication.

I will answer this one point which you think so potent..... You said:
"But even if all we had is the passage you said, you would still lose the point. You have never answered this question:
'If I say, 'Christ died for me!' Does that automatically exclude anyone else?'
If you would say it doesn't, then your entire point falls."

What you for some reason fail to see is that I am not saying that the text of Rom.8:32 proves that Christ died only for the elect based upon the bearing of the definition of the words "us all". Your obscure line of reasoning, which most people likely don't even follow, was of your own making. My arguement was EXPLICITLY this: The text says that Whom Jesus died for NECESSSARILY obtains the "all things" spoken of in the context. Why don't you try to argue against that by showing that the TEXT doesn't really say that? Because... you can't do it... thats why. Because the TEXT doesn't say that, and you know it. I make no argument from the word "us" as though that determined the point. Who "us all" is is determined by the fact that universalism is false... because the grammar in the text puts NECESSITY between the work of Christ and the benefit to the "us all". Thus knowing that all will not be saved, I know that the "us all" is not speaking of every man. Its not that hard..... IF YOUR WILLING TO HEAR IT.
If any man be willing to do his will he shall know the doctrine.
I suggest you read this post a couple of times, and try to understand it before offering any more such replies as you have been making.

G4G

 

[grateful4grace]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
[QB]

Originally posted by grateful4grace:

13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

Scott replied:
"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.
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!"

Scott.... please explain to us ignoraumses with "scriptural myopia" how you can chose a group..... WITHOUT CHOSING INDIVIDUALS.

Scott said:
"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."
Its amazing what you can find if God gives you over to a spirit of self-will and rationalistic unbelief.... truly amazing. So find a scripture that has nothing to do with election, but with God's chastisement of His people, and is entirely condition as such, and apply it to one that has to do with God's election of His people, saying explicitly that it was NOT for the sake of what they did, and then... abara cadabra... I don't have to believe what it says... yep... AMAZING.

G4G

[ August 31, 2002, 01:08 AM: Message edited by: grateful4grace ]

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by grateful4grace:
I began to answer all the minutia of your two posts, but they are really nothing but confusion, absurdities, and evasions.

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

The vain glorious pleasure of demonstrating the foolishness of your argumentation is popped by the shere [sic] verbosity of your reply.

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.

Wisdom is justified of her children, and these, I'm confident, see it clearly enough.... I can give light. To give eyes is up to the Sovereign grace of God.

Argument ad populem. Logical fallacy.

But the whole point is summed up in the following paragraph, and it completely destroys everything you said in all your contentions, and it was one of the several paragraphs that you made no reply to other than to rail at, or contradict without providing any argument for your contradiciton. So for the record... here it is:

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

You put contingency between the death of Christ and the benefit to men... BUT THAT IS THE WHOLE ARGUEMENT OF THE TEXT THAT THERE IS NO SUCH CONTINGENCY!!!!!! How shall they NOT obtain salvation, is the claim of Paul about the power of the cross! "He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, HOW SHALL HE NOT with him also freely give us all things?" What part of "HOW SHALL HE NOT" don't you understand? The text denies your EXACT claim, and puts NECESSITY between the work of Christ and the BENEFIT. THATS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE TEXT!
And this was the point I was making in my first question, which NNE has attempted to answer yet, but which you here wholly admit.

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.

If you wish to carry on some semblance of an intelligent conversation, why don't you provide an answer to this, and keep yourself to the grammar of the text in question. You call this proof texting. I call that shameless prevarication.

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.

What you for some reason fail to see is that I am not saying that the text of Rom.8:32 proves that Christ died only for the elect based upon the bearing of the definition of the words "us all". Your obscure line of reasoning, which most people likely don't even follow, was of your own making. My arguement was EXPLICITLY this: The text says that Whom Jesus died for NECESSSARILY obtains the "all things" spoken of in the context. Why don't you try to argue against that by showing that the TEXT doesn't really say that? Because... you can't do it... thats why. Because the TEXT doesn't say that, and you know it. I make no argument from the word "us" as though that determined the point. Who "us all" is is determined by the fact that universalism is false... because the grammar in the text puts NECESSITY between the work of Christ and the benefit to the "us all". Thus knowing that all will not be saved, I know that the "us all" is not speaking of every man. Its not that hard..... IF YOUR WILLING TO HEAR IT.
If any man be willing to do his will he shall know the doctrine.

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...)

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by grateful4grace:
Scott.... please explain to us ignoraumses with "scriptural myopia" how you can chose a group..... WITHOUT CHOSING INDIVIDUALS.

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.

Its amazing what you can find if God gives you over to a spirit of self-will and rationalistic unbelief.... truly amazing. So find a scripture that has nothing to do with election, but with God's chastisement of His people, and is entirely condition as such, and apply it to one that has to do with God's election of His people, saying explicitly that it was NOT for the sake of what they did, and then... abara cadabra... I don't have to believe what it says... yep... AMAZING.

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.

 

[BobRyan]

G4G
For those who oppose this doctrine, I propose to them that they answer these two questions.
1. Precisely WHAT is the benefit that these shall receive, if not that which is explicitly NAMED….. eternal salvation, from predestination all the way to glorification?
2. To WHOM is this benefit applied, if not to those explicitly NAMED in the text, those for whom Christ “gave Himself”?

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

 

[ScottEmerson]

Quoted by Bob...

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.

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."

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Scope is always determined by the most expansive limits.

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

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Ken Hamilton:
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.

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.

 

[tyndale1946]

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 ]

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
(BTW, you know Calvin believed in unlimited atonement, don't you? Just a historical curiosity many Calvinists do not know about

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 ]

 

[grateful4grace]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by grateful4grace:
Scott.... please explain to us ignoraumses with "scriptural myopia" how you can chose a group..... WITHOUT CHOSING INDIVIDUALS.

Scott replies:
"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."</font>[/QUOTE]If this is your explanation of how God chooses a group without choosing an individual, then your only conclusion can be that group chosen is NOT chosen to SALVATION, as you are saying he chooses a group, all of which are NOT saved. But nothing could be more perfectly clear from the text but that the group chosen is chosen to SALVATION, so you whole point is rubbish. The chosen group is defined at the outset, and demonstrated throughout the text. Just because they are Abraham's children does NOT mean they are CHILDREN OF GOD.. i.e. SAVED... THIS is the elected group of the text.. NOT Israel after the flesh. Paul elaborates upon the GROUNDS upon which THIS group of SAVED people was chosen... the election of God. THESE are the elected ones, and NONE else. The election of God spoken of in this text nowhere respects saved and unsaved Jews, and in fact likens the unsaved Jews to Esau, just as Gal. 4 likens them to Haggar and Ishmael. This is why the passages ends like this: 22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory". But that's not talking about a group elected to salvation? Yes or no, please.

You asked:
"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?"

You have no proof that Paul quotes this text. None. Secondly, if Jeremiah's passage is in direct reference to men's WORKS, why does this prove that Paul's has the same meaning, when Paul's says EXPLICITLY that it DOESN'T have anythiung to do with works? What part of "Its not of him that willeth" don't you understand?

You say,
"Way too many questions for you to answer for your point to stand. Way too many."[/QUOTE]Your obduracy is not the same thing as sound argument, though I'm confident that you will disagree with that also.

G4G

[ August 31, 2002, 03:11 PM: Message edited by: grateful4grace ]

 

[grateful4grace]

Originally posted by BobRyan:

G4G
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.

Dear Bob,

I would like to start another string on the words World, All, Only, etc. and investigate some of the things you are saying. I appreciate your candor in granting the weight of the argument HERE. I feel that most passages that general atonement people assert are weak to worthless, though some I do not really know how to answer well, though doubtless others on here do. But I will grant for instance, that in places of ITim.2 a univeral atonement APPEARS to be supported.... NOT that I belive it... just trying to be candid.... Just like you believe that this passage APPEARS to support limited atonement.

Without going too deep into it, I would remark that your passage in IJn. for instance was written to a Jewish colony in Parthia by the apostle John. The Jews LONG had a problem with assimilating with Gentiles, and Peter is certainly a choice example of that in being amazed that God would even SAVE a gentile... It is my persuasion that the verse you mention is speaking to this problem... that Jesus was not a sacrifice for US... the JEWS only, but for those of other nations as well.. the whole world. Thanks for your post.

G4G

 

[grateful4grace]

Originally posted by Ken Hamilton:

“God would have been inconsistent in sending Christ to die for those He positively foreknow would be lost.” - John Calvin
[/QB]

Dear Ken,

I have heard many people claim that "Calvin wasn't a Calvinist" as it respects atonement.... while it ultimately doesn't matter, as scripture is the issue, yet I was quite pleased to see this quote. Don't reckon you have ref. do you?

G4G

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by grateful4grace:
Don't reckon you have ref. do you?

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

 

[grateful4grace]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
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.

You confuse your providing arguments, with providing rational arguments. Your fecundity at generating irrational arguments ad nauseum constitutes no motive to rational creatures to answer you "ad nauseum".

Wisdom is justified of her children, and these, I'm confident, see it clearly enough.... I can give light. To give eyes is up to the Sovereign grace of God.

Argument ad populem. Logical fallacy."

Fallacy of confounding. I did not present this as an argument in PROOF of my point, but as a reason not to again answer any more of your smattering arguments... I mean how long am I obliged to do so before I just have to leave it to the readers? But if its truly an argumentum ad populem, then just remember.. I was quoting the Lord Jesus. But again you say, "Its a shame that you have resorted to ad hominem attacks." Again making the same blundering error of judgement and logic. I did not submit your personal ineptitude at dividing the word of God as a grounds of rejecting your argument. I was trying to compel you to rational intelligent discussion, having disproved your arguments already by rational argument. But if a reference to negative personal qualities necessarily constitutes an argumentum ad hominem, then you only make yourself culpable, as you have indulged it many times in this string. Not that I mind the thing itself... goes with the turf! lol Its just the hypocrisy of applying your fallacy of reasoning in only my direction.

You said in respect to a certain paragraph, which I claimed you had not answered:
"Oh, I answered it alright, but I'll be glad to answer it again - this time with the exetical explanation you seem to enjoy."

Here is the sum of your entire answer to that paragraph: "The reason no one has answered you to your satisfaction is because you fail to take any other Scripture in consideration. They've probably answered you, but haven't said what you're looking for." This being your sincere idea of an "answer" it is no wonder what we see on your posts. And here is the paragraph that this was supposedly an answer to.....

You put contingency between the death of Christ and the benefit to men... BUT THAT IS THE WHOLE ARGUEMENT OF THE TEXT THAT THERE IS NO SUCH CONTINGENCY!!!!!! How shall they NOT obtain salvation, is the claim of Paul about the power of the cross! "He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, HOW SHALL HE NOT with him also freely give us all things?" What part of "HOW SHALL HE NOT" don't you understand? The text denies your EXACT claim, and puts NECESSITY between the work of Christ and the BENEFIT. THATS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE TEXT!
And this was the point I was making in my first question, which NNE has attempted to answer yet, but which you here wholly admit.

And here is your new reply:
"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...)"

I don't have any questions about your ability to translate Greek, only your singleness of heart in wanting to understand what it says.
And as for your argument, I am literally lol. Here is your translation that is supposed to have removed the NECESSITY between the act of Christ's atonement, and the beneficent effects to men....
"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?" You establish my point as much as the KJV does. You didn't see it before, and you likely still don't.... again.. I am concerned to give light... eyes, are not my department.

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."
Tisk tisk, Mr. Emmerson! That is an arguemntum ad populem by your standards! lol But I get to make the claim with consistency not only to my own behaviour, but to the posts that stand on the record. Will you fault me again if I quote the Lord Jesus... "Wisdom is justified of her children"?

QB][/QUOTE]

[ August 31, 2002, 04:16 PM: Message edited by: grateful4grace ]

 

[BobRyan]

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.

G4G
It is my persuasion that the verse you mention is speaking to this problem... that Jesus was not a sacrifice for US... the JEWS only, but for those of other nations as well.. the whole world.

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

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 (elect JEWS AND GENTILE ONLY) sins, we (elect JEWS ONLY) have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous;

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

2 and He Himself is the propitiation for our (elect JEWS ONLY) sins; and not for ours (ELECT JEWS ONLY) only, but also for those of the whole world (elect JEWS and Gentiles) .

3 By this we (ELECT JEWS ONLY) know that we (ELECT JEWS ONLY) have come to know Him, if we (ELECT JEWS ONLY) keep His commandments.

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

5 but whoever (elect Jew and Gentile ONLY) keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we (elect JEWs only) know that we (elect JEWS only) are in Him:

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".

18 Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we (elect JEWS ONLY) know that it is the last hour.

28 Now, little children, abide in Him, so that when He appears, we (elect Jews ONLY) may have confidence and not shrink away from Him in shame at His coming.

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 ]

 

[KenH]

(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

 

[Ray Berrian]

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.