The high cost of a believer rejecting Jesus Christ

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
If you think we to just trust the text as it reads, then do you accept 2 Thess 2:13 where it says that God chose us to salvation from the beginning?

I accept both of texts you mention, and have discussed both of them at length, showing how they fit perfectly with the Bible's teaching that Calvinists believe. There is no conflict there.

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

 

[TCassidy]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
BTW - 1 John 2:2 goes perfectly with 1Tim 4:10

10 For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers.

In 1 John 2:2 it is "For He is the Atoning sacrifice for OUR sins and NOT for OUR sins only but for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD".

The emphasis both writers make on the SAVED - the SAINTS - the CHOSEN - the ELECT being INSIDE that larger group "WHOLE WORLD" for whom Christ died - is so obvious, so blatant, so clear, so striking, that it is "impossible to miss".

Those who reject that clear teaching from God's Word, do it "in spite" of these texts NOT "because of them"!!

How much simpler just to trust the Word of God as it reads.

In Christ,

Bob

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"!!

 

[Wes Outwest]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />You don't get a driver's license unless you know the law!

Yes, but when you are driving on a road, you might miss a speed limit sign.

When did you first become aware of God's law relative to sin?
Was it before you could walk and talk? Or was it after you had developed some communications skills and could actually hear the word of God!

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?

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
[QB]

Bob said of the Heb 10 OP

Your points are clear, obvious, to the point and impossible to refute.

Pastor Larry said -
I have already refuted them with clear exegetical evidence, thus showing that they are not "impossible to refute."

For Heb 10 you tried to claim that "Sanctified" does not really mean Gospel sanctification ...

PL
Sanctified" -- The NT uses sanctified of people who aren't saved. 1 Cor 7 talks about a believing spouse and an unbelieving spouse. The unbeliever is sanctified through their believing spouse.

Your proposal is to switche denitions for "sanctified" in the middle of the chapter no matter what the context has stated!

You turn the text so that Paul is writing to the unsaved/wicked telling them to be sure to endure and persevere in being lost lest they fall into sin and forget the blood of the covenant by which they WERE sanctified (but not in a Gospel sanctified way).

The problem there is that there was never a need for the lost to "persevere" in being lost.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

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.

Hebrews 10
1 For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near.
…
7 "" THEN I SAID, "BEHOLD, I HAVE COME (IN THE SCROLL OF THE BOOK IT IS WRITTEN OF ME) TO DO YOUR WILL, O GOD.'''
8 After saying above, "" SACRIFICES AND OFFERINGS AND WHOLE BURNT OFFERINGS AND sacrifices FOR SIN YOU HAVE NOT DESIRED, NOR HAVE YOU TAKEN PLEASURE in them'' (which are offered according to the Law),
9 then He said, "" BEHOLD, I HAVE COME TO DO YOUR WILL.'' He takes away the first in order to establish the second.
10 By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

“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.

11 Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins;
12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD,
13 waiting from that time onward UNTIL HIS ENEMIES BE MADE A FOOTSTOOL FOR HIS FEET.
14 For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.

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

Heb 10
21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God,
22 let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.
23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful;
24 and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds,
25 not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near.
26 For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,
27 but a terrifying expectation of judgment and THE FURY OF A FIRE WHICH WILL CONSUME THE ADVERSARIES.

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.

Heb 10
28 Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses.
29 How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?

30 For we know Him who said, "" VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY.'' And again, "" THE LORD WILL JUDGE HIS PEOPLE.''
31 It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

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.

32 But remember the former days, when, after being enlightened, you endured a great conflict of sufferings,
33 partly by being made a public spectacle through reproaches and tribulations, and partly by becoming sharers with those who were so treated.
34 For you showed sympathy to the prisoners and accepted joyfully the seizure of your property, knowing that you have for yourselves a better possession and a lasting one.
35 Therefore, do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward.
36 For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God, you may receive what was promised.
37 FOR YET IN A VERY LITTLE WHILE, HE WHO IS COMING WILL COME, AND WILL NOT DELAY.
38 BUT MY RIGHTEOUS ONE SHALL LIVE BY FAITH; AND IF HE SHRINKS BACK, MY SOUL HAS NO PLEASURE IN HIM.
39 But we are not of those who shrink back to destruction, but of those who have faith to the preserving of the soul.

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”.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by TCassidy:
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.

#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

Rom 3:25 25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—

1John 2:2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world. (NIV)

1John 4:10 this is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins (NIV)

NIV


Or as NASB translates it –

Ezekiel 44
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.

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

 

[TCassidy]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
#1. I did not do that - the NIV uses that translation for Ilasmos in this case because the translators consider the context.

Oh, okay. Sorry. Just another case of the dynamic equivalency of the NIV destroying the English translation.

John is writing from a Hebrew frame of reference - not from a pagan gentile POV regarding greek gods!

Yes, I know, which is why I included the OT references to how the word is used.

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.

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?

The NIV is correct.

No. A commentary at best and, in this case, and incorrect commentary.

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”.

The only time the words "sin offering" occur in my bible in Ezekiel 44 the Hebrew word being translated is "chatta’ah."

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

That is commentary, not translation, and in this case it is incorrect commentary.

NIV

Rom 3:25 25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—

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.

 

[BobRyan]

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”.

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

The only time the words "sin offering" occur in my bible in Ezekiel 44 the Hebrew word being translated is "chatta’ah."

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

 

[BobRyan]

NASB
44:27
"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.

LXX (Septuagint)
kai h an hmera eisporeuwntai eiv thn aulhn thn eswteran tou leitourgein en tw agiw prosoisousin ilasmon legei kuriov o qeov

For your convenience.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

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.

From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 :

Propitiation \Pro*pi`ti*a"tion\, n. [L. propitiatio: cf. F.
propitiation.]
[1913 Webster]
1. The act of appeasing the wrath and conciliating the favor
of an offended person; the act of making propitious.
[1913 Webster]

2. (Theol.) That which propitiates; atonement or atoning
sacrifice; specifically, the influence or effects of the
death of Christ in appeasing the divine justice, and
conciliating the divine favor.
[1913 Webster]

He [Jesus Christ] is the propitiation for our sins.
--1 John ii.
2.
[1913 Webster]

From WordNet (r) 2.0 (August 2003) :

propitiation
n 1: the act of placating and overcoming distrust and animosity
[syn: placation, conciliation]
2: the act of atoning for sin or wrongdoing (especially
appeasing a deity) [syn: expiation, atonement]

http://onlinedictionary.datasegment.com/word/propitiation

c. The Greek and Jewish concept of propitiation

Zondervan writes that

‘In classic pagan usage, the word propitiation...was used of averting the wrath of the gods. Renewed favour with heaven was won for the offender by his offering a gift or sacrifice to atone for his trespass’

while Morris comments that

‘...it was often held that the gods became angry with their worshippers and that they had to be appeased by choice offerings’

In the Greek world, the words translated by ‘propitiation’ were used in conjunction with the gods of a particular area, nation or even of an individual.

The ancients looked at the disasters of life around them and saw the hand of their gods in them - each incident (whether personal or corporate) was to them a demonstration of their wrath. But no-one was quite sure why the gods got angry. So they tried to propitiate them (turn away their anger to gain divine favour) by various acts of piety and service such as sacrifice, rituals, vows, dances and, even, games.

So, for instance, a failed crop of the staple diet of that nation or tribal group couldn’t go uninterpreted as the result of the anger of their chosen god - and there became the necessity to ‘appease’ their anger by certain actions. There was also a necessity to continuously offer to the gods to try and keep in their favour, so we see annual rituals (such as the celebration of the solstices) that tried to convey to their gods the reverence and awe in which they were held.

But still the people weren’t always certain just what made their gods angry - trial and error may give pointers in certain directions but there was seldom a time when they could pin-point a particular action that, if they were to do it again, would provoke a similar response.

http://www.arlev.clara.net/propitia.htm#4

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

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.

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

 

[TCassidy]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
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

Ah, yes. "Sin offering" but not "atonement." Just as I said. Thank you for confirming my position.

 

[TCassidy]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
NASB
44:27
"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.

LXX (Septuagint)
kai h an hmera eisporeuwntai eiv thn aulhn thn eswteran tou leitourgein en tw agiw prosoisousin ilasmon legei kuriov o qeov

For your convenience.

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, "sin offering" and not "atonement." Thank you for that additional confirmation.

 

[TCassidy]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Then you failed to follow the point AND you failed to grasp the issue for translation.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Wes Outwest]

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!

 

[icthus]

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.

 

[Pastor Larry]

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.

Where have I ever denied what the lexicons say?

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.

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 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.

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.

 

[icthus]

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.

 

[Pastor Larry]

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"?

I already answered this. How long till you read it and pay attention to it? Why try to deny that I have answered this?

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.

Your comments indicated that you believe that when he found out Calvin didn't say something, he should not have believed it anymore.

You accuse me of "not understanding". Where do I twist and misrepresent what the Bible says?

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.

 

[icthus]

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?