Restrictive Language on Christ's Atonement

A previous post I placed seems relevant.

See: http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=35&t=000111&p=

[ June 05, 2002, 08:57 AM: Message edited by: Nelson ]

 

KenHamilton...let us look at the question beginning with the Love of God...

The love of God is like God Himself...it is eternal, and unchangeable. All those whom God loves, love Him, in due time, BECAUSE He first loved them. Those who never come to love God were obviously never loved of Him, or they would have been brought to love God, too, just as we have been.

It should also be clear that the Love of God, being eternal, has no beginning and no end. Therefore, those whom God loves now He has always loved, and always shall forever, and those whom God does not love in this age, were never loved of Him, and NEVER SHALL BE.

cHRIST made atonement for all those who are loved of God. As a matter of fact, the atonement is the manifestation of the love of God for His chosen people only, but Christ made no atonement for "the Wicked" or Reprobate. They were never ordained to eternal life.

Regards, in the Name of Him whom we love only because He first loved us.

connieman

[ June 04, 2002, 09:00 PM: Message edited by: connieman ]

 

According to that, only those who are already just can be justified. Why would those who are already just need justification?

As for the word "many" it does not negate the word "all" for many can be "all."

 

Please explain how. According to my understanding, 4=4, 3 does not = 4.

One redeemed by Christ's blood,

Ken</font>[/QUOTE]I've got every single one of Dali's Paintings.
Which is correct?

I have many paintings by Dali.
I have all of Dali's paintings.

Let's assume that everyone who will ever live will be 15,000,000,000 for posterity's sake (the actual number is much higher). Fifteen billion people will sure qualift as many, right?

Christ gave himself a ransom for 15,000,000,000 people - that would qualify as many. Christ died for all. No contradiction.

Many is not an exclusive term.

"Wait a minute!" a person might object. Acts 17:12 says that "Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few." Does that mean that all of them believed?

Many is not a synonym for all, but is merely a description of a quantity, simply meaning "a whole bunch" in basic English vernacular. Therefore, to be completely faithful to the grammar and the original text, "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous," must mean that a whole bunch of people were made sinners (which we can imply "all" because of other passages which say that "all" have sinned) and a whole bunch of people could be made righteous (knowing that not "all" people would choose Christ).

Now in passages like, "Christ died for all," a faithful representation of the grammer, both internally and externally, is just that. All is every single person.

 

If I go to a birthday party, I see a cake. I ask "Who's cake is that?"
"It is John's birthday cake," the hostess replies.
"Can I have a piece?" I ask.
"Sure" says the hostess.
I get a piece of cake and eat it even though I am not John.

We can speak of a birthday cake as being one person's and yet all who attend the party can eat it. In the same way the scriptures can speak of salvation being for all and of salvation being for the elect with no contradiction. The cake is for John in a special sense as salvation is for the elect in a special sense. However, the cake is also for everyone at the party with no exclusions. Likewise, salvation has been provided for all without exclusion if they will receive it. God in his grace has made sure that there is plenty to go around.

I think I read this analogy in one of the writings of Millard Erickson, though of late I have been unable to locate it. At any rate I take no credit for the illustration though I do like it. If anyone knows its source, please credit them.

 

SolaScriptura...Who are reprobate? What is the consequence? "Examine yourselves; see if ye be in the faith, except ye be reprobate."

Swaimj...If you are not invited to the party, you don't get a piece of cake...and you must be "in (good with) John" in order to have a piece of John's cake.

connieman

[ June 05, 2002, 10:25 PM: Message edited by: connieman ]

 

Ah! But you would not say that this birthday cake can be eaten by all - you say "All who are the party can eat the cake." You would add a phrase defining all. If you'd like, I can show you all the instances of "all" found in Romans for starters and show you that whenever Paul says all without a specifier, he literally means "every person in the world."

 

The cake story is an illustration, not a proof. It does not prove that my position is correct, but illustrates an aspect of my position. Specifically, it shows that, in language, you can have an exclusive person within a broader all-inclusive group and that referring to the specific person in a specific way does not necessarily exclude the others.

The question at hand is "how do non-calvinists reconcile exclusive language in regards to who is saved with "all" language used elsewhere?" Your theological system requires you to twist the language of the "all" passages so that their meaning fits the meaning of the exclusive language. My solution shows that both types of passages can be taken in their full and simple sense with no contradiction. Since my position allows me to interpret individual scriptures according to their plain meaning, I prefer it.

 

It shows that in the English language this may happen. This may or may not happen in a different language adn the burden of proof is on you to show this.

What scriptures, specifically, are you speaking of? I think you misquote my position - I do not "twist" the word "pas." All means All.

So "Christ died for all" can be taken in its full and simple sense? That would mean that Christ died for all humanity, it would seem, but that's not what you believe is it?

I love the last quote, "Since my position allows me to interpret individual scriptures according to their plain meaning, I prefer it." Might I rephrase that? Your position "allows" (which is an interesting word choice, I must say) you to interpret individual scriptures according to the way you'd like for them to, with an a priori assumption that Christ did not die for all. Otherwise, all would be all, and that's all.

 

Scott, Swaimj, maybe I'm missing something here but I was under the impression, from reading a few back-posts, that you're both agreeing that "all" is inclusive, i.e. that "all" means Christ did not die only for a select few but for every individual.

Or, am I reading somebody's post sdrawkcab (i.e. "backwards")?

 

Just to clarify my position, I believe that Christ died for all men without exclusion.

 

I won't get into the argument on Limited or Unlimited Atonement. You want to read about the arguments for and against we had a lengthy debate started by me on the TULIP doctrine covering all points and there is no need to rehash them here. I guess this is before all you other brethren came along. The Primitive Baptist brethrens stand has always been Limited Atonement... "Jesus Christ died for ALL of the sins of some men" . The following is the site I mentioned before if any of you want to look at it... Brother Glen

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=35;t=000050

 

I could invite ALL the people I know to my party and then tell someone "Many people will be there." Could you prove that many MUST BE different than all? NO! Sometimes many might be less than all, BUT NOT ALWAYS. You should not dismiss clear Scriptures like Jn. 3:16 and Heb 2:9
over such a weak assumption as that many means less than all when many does NOT ALWAYS mean less than all and in some case is equal to all.