1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

The high cost of a believer rejecting Jesus Christ

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by icthus, Apr 13, 2005.

Top Posters
Page 9 of 10
  1. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Pastor Larry,

    The gist of your response is "that you still feel good about your position" but you did not actually address the details (obviously disconfirming to Calvinism) - except to say that whatever they are - you don't see them.

    So while "I am convinced" that you will not let the inconvenient details of Heb 10 and Matt 18 get in the way of the "story" for Calvinism.

    I also noticed that you did not actually addressed the points raised.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
    #161 BobRyan, Apr 18, 2005
  2. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,491
    Faith:
    Baptist
    It is interesting that you change the wording of 1 John 2:2 from "propitiation" (Greek `ilasmos) to "atoning sacrifice" (katallage thusia). I suspect that is based on a failure to understand what "propitiation" (`ilasmos) means.

    "Propitiation" (`ilasmos) is a Greek word that comes from the Greek word "hilasterionto" and made its way into the NT via the LXX and is the word used to indicate the "mercy seat" on the Ark of the Covenant (Hebrew "kapporeth" meaning "covering," and is used of the lid of the ark of the covenant in Exodus 25:21 and 30:6).

    In English "propitious" means kindly or gracious. "Propitiation" is the means by which God is rendered propitious, or a blessing to people. The sacrifice of Christ is a blessing from God to all men, but "especially of believers." All men receive a propitious blessing from the sacrifice of Christ, but only believers receive the "special" blessing of atonement. So, just as 1 John 2:2 says, the sacrifice of Christ was not just for us believers but so that God could be a blessing to all people, but that does not say or imply that the atonement is applied to all. Only believers have their sins atoned for.

    To paraphrase you, "Those who reject that clear teaching from God's Word, do it "because" of these texts NOT "in spite of them"!! [​IMG]
     
    #162 TCassidy, Apr 18, 2005
  3. Wes Outwest

    Wes Outwest New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2004
    Messages:
    3,400
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, but when you are driving on a road, you might miss a speed limit sign.

    We are aware of it when we begin to possess understanding. There is no particular time. But even before that, we are still sinners because of being born after the likeness of Adam. Our sinfulness does not depend on our knowledge of it, but rather on its inherent nature as sin.     </font>[/QUOTE]Even so, you are cognazant of the law! Unbelievers normally have not even heard of God's command to believe, so how can they be cognazant of the command?

    Whether born of the likeness of Adam or not We still have the image of God! And We are God's children only when we become believers.

    So do you punish those who don't know as if they did?
     
    #163 Wes Outwest, Apr 18, 2005
  4. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
     
    #164 BobRyan, Apr 18, 2005
  5. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Hebrews 10 makes a very pointed statement about the falling away of some who “WERE Sanctified”. The chapter itself identifies the “context” and definition for the gospel sanctification mentioned in Heb 10.

    “Sanctified” through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ “ONCE for ALL” is a reference to true Gospel sanctification. Being set apart in the gospel – as those purchased by the blood of Christ.

    The use of the term referring to real gospel sanctification in Heb 10 is beyond dispute.

    Here is a warning to the same “us” and “we” that are the ones who have been “Sanctified”. The context is clear. It is impossible to obfuscate this so as to divert the meaning to anything other than has already established in the chapter. The shocking thing is that the motivation to the saints to succeed takes into account the terrible and REAL cost of REAL failure. In the context so far – this is not a letter to the lost/wicked depraved world – it is a letter to the saints those who HAVE been sanctified as already identified in the chapter.

    The same point is made – as further detailed review is given to the “failing” case of those who were sanctified and YET rejected the blood of the covenant that sanctified them.

    For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.

    The argument for endurance is to those who HAVE been sanctified. And the argument for endurance TO THEM is that they NOT reject the blood of the covenant BY which they are sanctified but rather to ENDURE to persevere – to not turn back to rebellion and sin (transgression of God’s Law) after having been sanctified.

    The scenario is consistently of one forgetting his sanctification, falling back, shrinking back, retreating from the position of the saved of the sanctified of being called “my Righteous one”.
     
    #165 BobRyan, Apr 18, 2005
  6. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    #1. I did not do that - the NIV uses that translation for Ilasmos in this case because the translators consider the context. John is writing from a Hebrew frame of reference - not from a pagan gentile POV regarding greek gods!

    John's definition for Christ's work as the atoning sacrifice comes from the Heb Lev 16 "basis" for atonement NOT from the pagan greek "appeasement of the gods" mythology.

    The NIV is correct.

    Hence my statement --

    "Those who reject that clear teaching from God's Word, do it "in spite of" of these texts (1John 2:1-2, Heb 10:7) NOT "because of them"!!

    While I admit that some English translations use “propitiation” instead of “Atoning Sacrifice” it is instructive to note that the same term is used in Ezek 44 where they translate the word as “Sin offering”. Ezek 44:27 “Sin offering”.

    So the NIV is correct in translating this as “Atoning Sacrifice” for the “Sin offering” of Lev 16.

    NIV


    Or as NASB translates it –
    This term is used repeatedly in Lev 16:2, 14,15 … etc with the definite article (THE) to reference THE Mercy Seat of the Most Holy Place. This idea in Hebrew context instead of the context of pagan Greek mythology – becomes “atoning sacrifice”

    Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains
    Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, Editors
    Copyright © 1988, 1989 by the United Bible Societies, New York, NY 10023
    Second Edition. Used by permission.

    Landkarten zur Bible, prepared by Karl Elliger, revised by Siegfried Mittmann. Designed by Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft Stuttgart and Kartographisches Institut Helmut Fuchs Leonberg. Copyright ©1963, 1978, 1990 by Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Stuttgart. Used by permission.

    Electronic text hypertexted and prepared by OakTree Software, Inc.
    Version 3.3

    40.12 i°lasmo/ß, ouv m; i°lasth/riona, ou n: the means by which sins are forgiven — ‘the means of forgiveness, expiation.’
    i°lasmo/ßÚ aujto\ß i°lasmo/ß e?stin peri« tw?n a?martiw?n hJmw?n ‘(Christ) himself is the means by which our sins are forgiven’ 1Jn 2:2.
    i°lasth/rionaÚ o§n proe÷qeto oJ qeo\ß i°lasth/rion dia» thvß pi÷stewß ‘God offered him as a means by which sins are forgiven through faith (in him)’ Ro 3:25.
    Though some traditional translations render i°lasth/rion as ‘propitiation,’ this involves a wrong interpretation of the term in question. Propitiation is essentially a process by which one does a favor to a person in order to make him or her favorably disposed, but in the NT God is never the object of propitiation since he is already on the side of people. i°lasmo/ß and i°lasth/riona denote the means of forgiveness and not propitiation.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
    #166 BobRyan, Apr 18, 2005
  7. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,491
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Oh, okay. Sorry. Just another case of the dynamic equivalency of the NIV destroying the English translation.
    Yes, I know, which is why I included the OT references to how the word is used.
    I don't know where you are getting this pagan Greek "appeasement of the god" mythology stuff but I never mentioned any such thing. Is this just some misdirection so you don't have to deal with the exegesis of the text?

    No. A commentary at best and, in this case, and incorrect commentary.
    The only time the words "sin offering" occur in my bible in Ezekiel 44 the Hebrew word being translated is "chatta’ah."
    That is commentary, not translation, and in this case it is incorrect commentary.
    Another example of the NIV's dynamic equivalence leading the reader astray. :(

    I deleted the rest as being irrelevant to the discussion as nobody here holds to a pagan idea that propitiation is bribing the gods to love us. The Christian theological meaning of "propitiation" is the means by which God is able to be a blessing to us, and that is, of course, the satisfaction of His holiness by the sacrifice of Christ. [​IMG]
     
    #167 TCassidy, Apr 18, 2005
  8. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    quote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While I admit that some English translations use “propitiation” instead of “Atoning Sacrifice” it is instructive to note that the same term is used in Ezek 44 where they translate the word as “Sin offering”. Ezek 44:27 “Sin offering”.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    And "your bible is"??

    In the meant time - 44:27 -- the point remains.

    NASB

    27"On the day that he goes into the sanctuary, into the inner court to minister in the sanctuary, he shall offer his sin offering," declares the Lord GOD


    New International Version (NIV)

    27 On the day he goes into the inner court of the sanctuary to minister in the sanctuary, he is to offer a sin offering for himself, declares the Sovereign LORD .


    Young's Literal Translation (YLT)

    27And in the day of his coming in unto the sanctuary, unto the inner court, to minister in the sanctuary, he bringeth near his sin-offering -- an affirmation of the Lord Jehovah.


    New King James Version (NKJV)

    27And on the day that he goes to the sanctuary to minister in the sanctuary, he must offer his sin offering in the inner court," says the Lord GOD.


    Young's Literal Translation (YLT)


    27And in the day of his coming in unto the sanctuary, unto the inner court, to minister in the sanctuary, he bringeth near his sin-offering -- an affirmation of the Lord Jehovah.


    Maybe you should try vs 27.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
    #168 BobRyan, Apr 18, 2005
  9. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    For your convenience.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
    #169 BobRyan, Apr 18, 2005
  10. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    I suppose I could leave it as an exercise for the reader to determin if "sin offering" and "Atoning Sacrifice" are valid synonyms given the Lev 16 model for "atonement".

    I am happy with either one in this case.

    As for "propitiation" and the context established from Greek myths and Greek gods.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
    #170 BobRyan, Apr 18, 2005
  11. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Then you failed to follow the point AND you failed to grasp the issue for translation.

    Hopefully the previous posts will help clarify WHY it would be important NOT to use the Pagan POV and WHY the Hebrew concept of "atoning Sacrifice" and "sin offering" were the ESTABLISHED views of atonement that would be needed RATHER than the pagan concept of "propitiation" as the correct "translation to ENGLISH" for Hilasmos in the case of 1John 2.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
    #171 BobRyan, Apr 18, 2005
  12. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,491
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Ah, yes. "Sin offering" but not "atonement." Just as I said. Thank you for confirming my position. [​IMG]
     
    #172 TCassidy, Apr 18, 2005
  13. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,491
    Faith:
    Baptist
    For your convenience.

    In Christ,

    Bob     </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, "sin offering" and not "atonement." Thank you for that additional confirmation.
     
    #173 TCassidy, Apr 18, 2005
  14. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,491
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Well, actually, no, I didn't fail to follow the point nor grasp the issue for translation.

    I just understand that the theological definition of "propitiation" has nothing whatsoever to do with the pagan concept of appeasing the angry gods. [​IMG]
    Hopefully your previous posts will help you clarify your thinking in regards to the Christian theological meaning of "propitiation" as being quite different from the irrelevant pagan concept, and that "atonement" and "sin offering" are not theologically interchangeable concepts. There were many "sin offerings" in the OT that were not offered on the Day of Atonement. [​IMG]
     
    #174 TCassidy, Apr 18, 2005
  15. Wes Outwest

    Wes Outwest New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2004
    Messages:
    3,400
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nevertheless, there is but one Atonement MADE BY THE CHRIST for the sins of the world! And that is what is at issue here, the Atonement that takes away the sins of the world, eliminating sin from the Salvation equation!
     
    #175 Wes Outwest, Apr 19, 2005
  16. icthus

    icthus New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yeh, I noticed that both Cassidy and Larry (and any other Calvinist) seem to ignore what the Greek Lexicons have to say on the two places where "kosmos" is used. Once by itself in John 3:15-17, and then with adjective "holos". As I mentioned before, all the Lexicons that I have in my possission have defined "kosmos" in both these places as "of all mankind". This is the case in Ardnt and Gingrich, Thayer, Cremer, Abbot-Smith, Parkhurst, Robinson, Kittel. I will ask this again. Are all of these authorities wrong? I have also shown, that one of their own, Dr Robert Dabney, has said of both these verses:

    "But there are others of these passages, to which I think, the candid mind will admit, this sort of explanation is inapplicable. In Jno.iii.16, make 'the world' which Christ loved, to mean 'the elect world' and we reach the absurdity, that some of the elect many not believe, and perish. In 2 Cor. v.15f, if we make the all for whom Christ died, mean only all who live unto Him- i.e. , the elect- it would seem to be implied that of those elect for whom Christ died, only a part will live to Christ. In Jno.ii.2, it is at least doubtful whether the express phrase, 'whole world' can be restrained to the world of elect as including other than Jews. For it is indisputable, that the Apostle extends the propiatition of Christ beyond those whom he speaks of as 'we', in verse first. The interpretation described obviously proceeds on the assumption that these are only Jewish believers. Can this be substantiated? Is this catholic epistle addressed only to Jews? This is more than doubtful. It would seem then, that the Apostle's scope is, to console and encourage sinning believers with the thought, that since Christ made expiation for every man, there is no danger that He will not be found a propiatition for them who, having already believed, now sincerely turn to him from recent sins" (Systematic Theology, p.525)

    Note how Dabney says that it would be more "candid" (honest) for the Calvinist to admit that these passages cannot be used to support their theory of Limited Atonement. Rather than accept what Dabney, a leading Calvinist, says, because he honestly saw that such interpretations that they spin on these verses simply cannot be sustained, the likes of Larry and Cassidy, will simply write off what Dabney and all the Greek authorities that I have shown say, to ensure that they keep on promosting their lies. Then the wonder why we accuse them of twisting Scripture. This is one thing that I have found to be true when dealing with most Calvinists. Rather than accepting that what they believe has serious problems when compared with what the Bible teaches, they will either dismiss it as someone misunderstanding, or twist it so that it fits their thinking. How then can these people be open to the Holy Spirit to show them when they are in error? They preach to us to accept the teachings of Scripture, but themselves will not admit to the error of their ways! This reminds me of a Calvinistic pastor friend I have here in London. He met me a few years back and said that his wife had just completed translating Calvin's commentary on Galatians, and that there is no doubt, that from Calvin's own words, that he did not believe or teach Limited Atonement. I then asked him if he had given up on this error? He replied, no, because there were still other Calvinists, like Owen, Gill, who still believed in it, and therefore he would continue to himself. This proves that their belief is NOT founded upon the Word of God, but in what men teach. Can you really trust such peopel to tell you the truth about Scripture?

    I do not expect any honest response from any Calvinist here, but do expect some playing around with the Word of God, and dismissing of what I have shown, for lack of my understanding. What can I say then? We would have to question the honesty of Calvinism. Are they then any better with their handle of the Word of God than the Mormon, or Catholic or JW? You will have to be the judge by what response you read here.
     
    #176 icthus, Apr 19, 2005
  17. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Where have I ever denied what the lexicons say?

    This was quite humorous. You have spent time attacking what Calvin taught as unbiblical, and now you appeal to Calvin because he did not teach a limited atonement. How convenient for you. If you properly define limited atonement, it is taught in Scripture. The problem is, you don't properly define atonement or limited.

    You have gotten nothing but honesty, you have gotten no playing around with Scripture, and you have demonstrated a lack of misunderstanding. Don't bring this type of response into this forum. Discuss issues, not people. If you don't like the responses you get, that is fine. That does not mean they are dishonest. If you disagree, that is fine. But that doesn't mean we are dishonest or twisting Scripture. If you don't understand, there is a remedy for that.
     
    #177 Pastor Larry, Apr 19, 2005
  18. icthus

    icthus New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    Larry, you say:

    "Where have I ever denied what the lexicons say?"

    I have shown that the Greek Lexicons clearly say that "kosmos" at John 3:15-17, and 1 John 2:2, is used for the "whole of mankind". Do you accept this? If you did, how can you still hold to "Limited Atonement"?

    You also say,

    "This was quite humorous. You have spent time attacking what Calvin taught as unbiblical, and now you appeal to Calvin because he did not teach a limited atonement. How convenient for you. If you properly define limited atonement, it is taught in Scripture. The problem is, you don't properly define atonement or limited"

    I have NOT appealed to Calvin for anything, but pointing out the fact that Calvinism is based more on what man teaches, that what the Bible has to say. As shown by my friends response, where, while admitting that Calvin did not believe in Limited Atonement, continued his own belief, based, not on Scripture, but what others like Owen and Gill have to say.

    You accuse me of "not understanding". Where do I twist and misrepresent what the Bible says? Where do I try to render "kosmos" by "the elect"? Let please deal with facts.
     
    #178 icthus, Apr 19, 2005
  19. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    I already answered this. How long till you read it and pay attention to it? Why try to deny that I have answered this?
    Your comments indicated that you believe that when he found out Calvin didn't say something, he should not have believed it anymore.

    What I said you were misunderstanding was what we believe. You don't understand Calvinism and your objections to limited atonement indicate that. You think that Calvinists don't believe that God loves the world (as in all of mankind). That simply isn't true. Some Calvinists may believe that, most certainly do not. If you understood Calvinism, you would know that.

    As for twisting Scripture, your whole argument on John 3:15-17 with the subjunctive was a clear case of that.
     
    #179 Pastor Larry, Apr 19, 2005
  20. icthus

    icthus New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    Larry you say,

    "As for twisting Scripture, your whole argument on John 3:15-17 with the subjunctive was a clear case of that"

    I did not see you respond to my reply, showing that the subjunctive with "hina" is also used for "uncertainity" in Scripture, as it does in 2 Thess 2:16. Can you check this in the Greek and come back to me?

    If you believe that "God so loved the world", as referring to "all of mankind". Then, how can you continue to believe in Limited Atonement? For, the "whosoever believes" in the verse has to the refer to "whosover" from "all of mankind". Right?
     
    #180 icthus, Apr 19, 2005
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 9 of 10
Loading...