Limited Atonement... Unanswerable question.

[grateful4grace]

I had said:
"If Jesus died for souls now in hell, by whose merits do we hope to obtain salvation? There is only one answer: not HIS; only YOURS. There is simply no way out of it. I have asked this question to dozens of people since then, and have never gotten anything remotely close to a answer, and rarely is it long atempted."

Eric replied:
"The Bible does not really discuss "those in Hell already" in relation to salvation (for the whole point is moot), so that is why it has been hard for people to deal directly with this proposition. I think many will agree that people before Christ were saved by faith, just like now, and Christ's death reached back and redeemed them (or their faith "looked forward"). Likewise those who did not have faith (Romans 9:31-33) were not justified, and not covered by the blood when it was shed. Keep in mind we are dealing with a God not bound by time who acts in time, so this is the reason "unanswerable questions" may arise. We must not overspeculate on the ramifications of these things and try to prove our doctrine on these questions, because that is itself a desperate evasive tactic when there should be enough clear scripture (divided rightly, according to context and the whole of scriptural revelation) to support one's position without having to resort to such tactics. (The Pharisees used this same method on Jesus)."

Unanswerable questions arise from the inconsistencies of erroneous theology... not from the fact that the eternal God acts in time. You attempt to make this into this grand mystery behind which Arminians are consistent in thus applying for immunity from their fallacies of argument, when no such mystery shrouds the subject. Are you saying that you DENY that Christ died for those now in hell? Do you deny that? No? Then you confess that my point is not mysterious. If you DO deny it, then you believe in a limited atonement, and deny your post.

I had said:
" 32 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?” (Romans 8:29-32)

Notice verse 32…… It says one thing very clearly: Whoever it was that Jesus died for gets “all things”, and these “things” can ONLY refer to those “things” just mentioned… predestination, calling, justification, and glorification…. i.e., salvation. So if Jesus died for all men, then all are saved, because those for whom he died cannot fail of getting THESE things. Thus we are left with being either Sovereign Grace, or Universalists. That choice should be easy."

To which Eric replied:
"Simple. If Christ did die for all men, then he also died for "us all" (believers) as well. The whole group (of all humanity) includes the subset (of believers). So I see no problem in saying that those who get "all things" are "us all", meaning believers only."

Simple if you didn't understand the question, which I perceive you didn't. If Christ died for all men, and if there is no contingency between His dying for them, and their receiving the benefit, as the text says, then ALL MEN ARE SAVED. And your paragraph just above is a total contradiction.
You say,
"If Christ did die for all men, then he also died for "us all" (believers) as well."
Right here you are ASSUMING your conclusion... this is called begging the question. The whole question is just this: IF Christ died for all men. You grant this question as a given in your argument to prove it. This is false reasoning. Of course you reach your conclusion! Why not just skip the stuff between and say if Christ died for all, then Christ died for all!
You continue:
"The whole group (of all humanity) includes the subset (of believers)."
Yes, but if there is no contingency between Christ's death and their receiving the benefit, AS THE TEXT SAYS, then the distinction is irrelevant... BOTH groups are saved if that is true.
You continue:
"So I see no problem in saying that those who get "all things" are "us all", meaning believers only."
What you failed to notice in your reasoning, is that you started out assuming the argument that Christ died for all, and now end up supposing to have proved that he only died for the elect, saying that the "us all" for whom He gave himself are only the elect! I agree, but I don't think you meant to do that!

G4G

[ September 08, 2002, 01:50 AM: Message edited by: grateful4grace ]

 

[grateful4grace]

Bob Ryan:
[/QUOTE]The question is perplexing since it "seems to presuppose" the Mormon doctrine of accepting salvation in another life rather than in this one.
The idea that souls in hell would be allowed to accpet salvation based on -- what? - their works in hell?

I guess one would have to "be" a Mormon to see it as a dilemma for the Arminian POV.

(It is interesting that even the book of Mormon condemns the teaching of waiting until after death to accept salvation.)

======================================
Or maybe the question is to address the idea that there were souls in hell at the time of the death of Christ - so in dying for the sins of the "whole World" He "should" have at least excluded them from the "Whole World". Is that it?

=========================
Or is the question "really" to address OT saints and when they receive salvation. The subject of "One Gospel" that is effective in the OT (taking Enoch and Elijah to heaven for example) as well as in the NT - then again, the question is more related to how one vs OT vs NT Gospels as being Two or One - rather than the question of Arminian vs Calvinism.

Pick one of the options above or add one that more accurately identifies the point you would like to have addressed.

Dear Bob,

I find the point rather self evident frankly, and view your seeming clueless musing about it with some disbelief. It is rather obvious. Arminians think that those who will be in hell... (in what age is irrelevant)... had Christ's atonement made for them as much as for anyone. If that is the case, IN ANY AGE, then those who DIDN'T end up there, DIDN'T end up there for some OTHER reason than the atonement. OK? I mean.... you don't deny that Jesus died equally for souls that will inhabit hell for eternity do you? No, you won't deny that. Then where's the mystery?

You attempt to enter the matter of people being saved after death, as though it were some rational necessity contained in my argument, when it is but a fanciful invention of your own head. If it is otherwise, then perhaps you could answer for the fact that is THEN a rational necessity contained in what YOU believe, because you truly do believe that Jesus died for souls that will populate hell for eternity. If you don't, then you are confessing to a limited atonement. If you do, then I guess you are confessing yourself a Mormon. Judging by some of your posts, you may prefer the latter.
I veiw it as possible that you are just trying to make my position look foolish with such devices, because you are not prepared to answer the
theological difficulty contained in the argument.

G4G

 

[TheRadicalOne]

Originally posted by grateful4grace:
Radical one:
"You've learned to wolf the carrion and spit out the wheat, from my perspective."

You are so funny!! I don't have the problems you have. I can profit from writters like Wesley, Edwards, Clark, Finney, Spurgeon, Willmington, and many others. Through prayer and study God has given me discenment for that. Glory to God!

The point about Finney and doubting you and the writter of the article online, is because you and him are incorrect in Finney's meaning and interpretation of the Atonement that's why you don't find any quote in the online article. Finneys definition of the Atonement fits perfectly with the Bible itself and most Bible dictionaries.

Smith's Bible Dictionary:
ATONEMENT: Satisfaction for sin by which forgiveness is had.
---
We see that when Jacob sent a present to his brother Esau, he said, "For he said, I will appease him with the present that goeth before me, and afterward I will see his face; peradventure he will accept me." Genesis 32:20b

Originally posted by grateful4grace:
"He is an enemy of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and if anyone esteems him to be somewhere other than burning in HELL at this moment, and I reckon that they are at BEST GROSSLY perverted and deceived as to the gospel, and at worst headed for the same damnation as he."

Okay, you will give account for your words. I am only curious, Is there any writter you agree with 100%?

I didn't find any response of my arguments about the ATONEMENT. I assume you don't have any.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by TheRadicalOne:
Did Christ payed the exact amount of punishment that the amount of sinners he died for deserved?

Yes, Christ Jesus did pay the full punishment for the sins of all of His people. There is not one sin that they will be punished for themselves.

(2 Cor 5:21 NKJV) For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

You see, the sins of His people were imputed to Him. His righteousness is imputed to His people. Without imputation there would have been no propiation of sins, and no way for His people to stand pure and righteous before His Father.

(Heb 2:17 NKJV) Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.

(1 John 4:10 NKJV) In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

From Easton's Bible Dictionary:

Propitiation — that by which God is rendered propitious, i.e., by which it becomes consistent with his character and government to pardon and bless the sinner. The propitiation does not procure his love or make him loving; it only renders it consistent for him to execise his love towards sinners.

In Rom. 3:25 and Heb. 9:5 (A.V., “mercy-seat”) the Greek word hilasterion is used. It is the word employed by the LXX. translators in Ex. 25:17 and elsewhere as the equivalent for the Hebrew kapporeth, which means “covering,” and is used of the lid of the ark of the covenant (Ex. 25:21; 30:6). This Greek word (hilasterion) came to denote not only the mercy-seat or lid of the ark, but also propitation or reconciliation by blood. On the great day of atonement the high priest carried the blood of the sacrifice he offered for all the people within the veil and sprinkled with it the “mercy-seat,” and so made propitiation.
In 1 John 2:2; 4:10, Christ is called the “propitiation for our sins.” Here a different Greek word is used (hilasmos). Christ is “the propitiation,” because by his becoming our substitute and assuming our obligations he expiated our guilt, covered it, by the vicarious punishment which he endured. (Comp. Heb. 2:17, where the expression “make reconciliation” of the A.V. is more correctly in the R.V. “make propitiation.”)

Christian regards,

Ken
A Spurgeonite

 

[TheRadicalOne]

Originally posted by Ken Hamilton:

Yes, Christ Jesus did pay the full punishment for the sins of all of His people. There is not one sin that they will be punished for themselves.

Didn't you deserve an eternity in hell?

PS. I have to be careful how I "treat you" I hope this message don't be deleted by Pastor Larry.

[ September 08, 2002, 05:42 PM: Message edited by: TheRadicalOne ]

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by TheRadicalOne:
1) Didn't you deserve an eternity in hell?

2) PS. I have to be careful how I "treat you" I hope this message don't be deleted by Pastor Larry.

1) Amen.

2) You can always email me privately if you want to downgrade the debate.

Christian regards,

Ken
A Spurgeonite

 

[TheRadicalOne]

Originally posted by Ken Hamilton:

You can always email me privately if you want to downgrade the debate.

Thank you, you are so kind!

If I understood correctly you said that you deserved an eternity in hell, did Jesus suffer that?

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by TheRadicalOne:
If I understood correctly you said that you deserved an eternity in hell, did Jesus suffer that?

My sins can only be forgiven if He sacrificed Himself for me.

Are you having a problem with the idea of Jesus having suffered for actual sins of actual people? Are you an advocate of the Socinian view of the atonement, or the moral influence view, or the ethical view, or the governmental theory view, or some other "off-brand" atonement idea?

Christian regards,

Ken
A Spurgeonite

 

[TheRadicalOne]

Originally posted by Ken Hamilton:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by TheRadicalOne:
If I understood correctly you said that you deserved an eternity in hell, did Jesus suffer that?

My sins can only be forgiven if He sacrificed Himself for me.

Are you having a problem with the idea of Jesus having suffered for actual sins of actual people? Are you an advocate of the Socinian view of the atonement, or the moral influence view, or the ethical view, or the governmental theory view, or some other "off-brand" atonement idea?

Christian regards,

Ken
A Spurgeonite</font>[/QUOTE]LOL, Please calm down and answer my question.

[ September 08, 2002, 06:31 PM: Message edited by: TheRadicalOne ]

 

[KenH]

Answer to question - Yes.

Now answer my question about which view of the atonement you advocate. Okay?

Christian regards,

Ken
A Spurgeonite

[ September 08, 2002, 06:32 PM: Message edited by: Ken Hamilton ]

 

[TheRadicalOne]

Originally posted by Ken Hamilton:
Answer to question - Yes

Wrong answer Ken, Jesus Christ is now sat at the right hand of the Father, not in hell. This goes against the "retributive" use of the word ATONEMENT, by Calvinists. Jesus Christ's sacrifice was not a payment for a debt not a retribution for a fault. ATONEMENT means "satisfaction for sin, by which forgivenes is had", is the act that pleased God to bring reconciliation with man. Calvinists confuse the term ATONEMENT with REDEMTION.

Jesus Christ died for ALL MAN WITHOUT EXCEPTION. That anybody can come and be redeemed. His sacrifice was symbolized through all sacrifices of the Old Testament.

To say that Christ died "only for the elect" is a misunderstanding of what the Atonement is.

[ September 08, 2002, 06:50 PM: Message edited by: TheRadicalOne ]

 

[KenH]

I am afraid, Radical, that you do not understand the meaning of the word, propitiation.

Am I to understand then that your view of the atonement is Socinian?

From James Petigru Boyce's Abstract of Systematic Theology, p. 295:

CHAPTER XXVIII.
THE ATONEMENT OF CHRIST.

SEVERAL prominent theories have been presented, as to the atoning work of Christ, and the method by which God pardons sin.

1. The lowest of these is the Socinian. This proceeds on the principle that God is pure benevolence, that vindictive justice is incompatible with his character, and that upon mere repentance, God can and will forgive the sinner. The work of Christ, therefore, is regarded as one in which he simply reveals or makes known pardon to man. Nothing that he has done secures it, because he had nothing to do to this end. It was already prepared in the benevolence of God's nature, and is simply now made known. [Symington on the Atonement, pp. 2 and 3.]

Christian regards,

Ken
A Spurgeonite

[ September 08, 2002, 07:08 PM: Message edited by: Ken Hamilton ]

 

[Eric B]

Unanswerable questions arise from the inconsistencies of erroneous theology... not from the fact that the eternal God acts in time. You attempt to make this into this grand mystery behind which Arminians are consistent in thus applying for immunity from their fallacies of argument, when no such mystery shrouds the subject. Are you saying that you DENY that Christ died for those now in hell? Do you deny that? No? Then you confess that my point is not mysterious. If you DO deny it, then you believe in a limited atonement, and deny your post.

OK, I just noticed that you emphasized "souls now in Hell", and I had misread it as the souls in Hell before He died (which is also frequently (recently) thrown up as such a "question", and what involves the whole God and time" issue).
So you mean any and all who were not saved, and that's getting at the also frequent question that if they weren't saved by having Christ die for them, then is our "faith" some sort of "merit" by which we who will be in Heaven "save ourselves", right?
This stems from an erroneous belief that having faith is a "work" simply because we "do" it, rather than it being purely a "gift" given by God (and therefore withheld from all who die lost.) So the answer as to why one person believes and not another would be the same as why one person murders and not another. "What made one thief on the cross ask for forgiveness and not the other?"(a common example) Well, what made them wind up on the cross as thieves in the first place and not others? It is not the point in the scripture. The parable of the seed and sower (Matthew 13) does attribute different people's rejection to various causes, within the hearts of the people themselves, however. Not due to reprobation or "passing over" (in which case the different states of the ground mentioned would be irrelevant). This does not make the one who does not murder or steal good or righteous when he has commiteed a host of other sins in his life, as the scriptures show. But the whole point in having faith once again is realizing you have no righteousness in yourself, rather than faith being an act of righteousness in itself.

Simple if you didn't understand the question, which I perceive you didn't. If Christ died for all men, and if there is no contingency between His dying for them, and their receiving the benefit, as the text says, then ALL MEN ARE SAVED. And your paragraph just above is a total contradiction.
You say,
"If Christ did die for all men, then he also died for "us all" (believers) as well."
Right here you are ASSUMING your conclusion... this is called begging the question. The whole question is just this: IF Christ died for all men. You grant this question as a given in your argument to prove it. This is false reasoning. Of course you reach your conclusion! Why not just skip the stuff between and say if Christ died for all, then Christ died for all!
You continue:
"The whole group (of all humanity) includes the subset (of believers)."
Yes, but if there is no contingency between Christ's death and their receiving the benefit, AS THE TEXT SAYS, then the distinction is irrelevant... BOTH groups are saved if that is true.

Whether it's "all men" or the "elect" only, is not the point. You're starting from the assumption that it's only the elect whom Christ died for, so "us all" who received the gifts must be all whom Christ died for, and are using this passage as a proof text, so I'm showing how it's just as possible that "us all" is a smaller group out of an "all" who Christ died for. (It does NOT say "Whoever it was that Jesus died for gets 'all things'”, and no "contingency" is mentioned because that is not the point. (e.g. why they are apart of a group whom both Christ died for, and will receive the gifts. The true meanings of "predestine", "foreknew" etc., n the preceeding context is a whole other issue people interpret differently and I believe involves mystery). Most Calvinists believe a person must believe in order to be saved --a contingency, but differ from the Arminians over whether the person can believe on his own or must be granted faith by election. But none of this is being addressed by the verse in question. --i.e the question of the scripture is NOT "IF Christ died for all men".)

[ September 08, 2002, 07:28 PM: Message edited by: Eric B ]

 

[TheRadicalOne]

Originally posted by Ken Hamilton:
I am afraid, Radical, that you do not understand the meaning of the word, propitiation.

Am I to understand then that your view of the atonement is Socinian?

Now, your true colors are showing up. You don't have an issue St. Anselman.

 

[KenH]

(1 Cor 6:20 NKJV) For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God's.

Do you ever actually discuss a subject, Radical? Are you afraid to admit you are a Socinian?

Are you trying to equate the Biblical teaching of substitutionary atonement with Anselm of Canterbury? The teaching goes back way before him, all the way to the Old Testament.

Ken
A Spurgeonite

 

[Primitive Baptist]

What is a ransom?

 

[TheRadicalOne]

Originally posted by Ken Hamilton:
(1 Cor 6:20 NKJV) For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God's.

Do you ever actually discuss a subject, Radical? Are you afraid to admit you are a Socinian?

A subject? The Atonement, if I have good memory.

I guess I don't fit in the Socinian box. How about you in the Anselmian?

2 Peter 2:1 "But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction." (KJV)

 

[BobRyan]

Though G4G is clearly unhappy about my question asking for clarification of his point - he does eventually get around to clarifying his own point.

G4G
Arminians think that those who will be in hell... (in what age is irrelevant)... had Christ's atonement made for them as much as for anyone. If that is the case, IN ANY AGE, then those who DIDN'T end up there, DIDN'T end up there for some OTHER reason than the atonement. OK? I mean.... you don't deny that Jesus died equally for souls that will inhabit hell for eternity do you? No, you won't deny that. Then where's the mystery?

Certainly we must agree that Christ's atoning sacrifice for our sins and "not for ours sins only but for those of the Whole World" would include the atoning sacrifice for BOTH the lost and the saved.

And ceratinly we would agree that the lost go to hell.

And certainly we would agree that the "difference" is in "Gods Sovereign choice - CHOOSING to Draw ALL men unto Himself. CHOOSING to make the offer of salvation such that - WHOsoever will may receive Him. Choosing the conditional model of Ezek 18 and Ezek 31. CHoosing a forgiveness-revoked model of Matt 18"

It is all of God's Own "Choosing". How HE sovereignly "chooses" to apply the atoning sacrifice - and the fact that He chooses the Free Will system - is His Choice.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by TheRadicalOne:
2 Peter 2:1 "But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction." (KJV)

Where do you get the idea that this verse is even referring to Christ's atonement?

Peter's first letter was written to Jews, and there is every reason to believe that his second letter was also, since he went to the Jews and Paul to the Gentiles. Therefore, "bought" refers to God the Father, not God the Son, when He bought the Jews in Egypt and delivered them from slavery. Remember the Jews gave the Levites to God in the place of their first born.

(Num 3:12 NKJV) "Now behold, I Myself have taken the Levites from among the children of Israel instead of every firstborn who opens the womb among the children of Israel. Therefore the Levites shall be Mine,

(Exodus 15:16 NKJV) Fear and dread will fall on them; By the greatness of Your arm They will be as still as a stone, Till Your people pass over, O LORD, Till the people pass over Whom You have purchased.

(Deuteronomy 32:6 NKJV) Do you thus deal with the LORD, O foolish and unwise people? Is He not your Father, who bought you? Has He not made you and established you?

(Psa 74:2 NKJV) Remember Your congregation, which You have purchased of old, The tribe of Your inheritance, which You have redeemed; This Mount Zion where You have dwelt.

Ken
A Spurgeonite

[ September 09, 2002, 11:54 AM: Message edited by: Ken Hamilton ]

 

[TheRadicalOne]

Originally posted by Ken Hamilton:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by TheRadicalOne:
2 Peter 2:1 "But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction." (KJV)

Where do you get the idea that this verse is even referring to Christ's atonement?
</font>[/QUOTE]From no where, it was only a verse that refutes the first one you quoted. And has nothing to do with the atonement either.

2 Peter 2:1 is talking about false prophets, not Jews.