Particular Redemption/Limited Atonement

[DivineNames]

Once again, no Scripture just empty words.

Sorry, but they aren't, "empty words". Your position is easily smashed to bits. You can't answer the argument that has been made against it. If you think that an argument not depending on the Bible is necessarily "empty", well that is your problem. :D

And anyway, I have provided a Biblical objection to your position in a different thread and you just ignored it. Perhaps you can answer that point? Perhaps you would acknowledge the verse as a problem, but still believe your position is the most consistent with scripture? Whatever the case, stop saying no scripture has been provided because it freaking has!

 

[DivineNames]

If God's justice has been appeased (which means: To bring peace, quiet, or calm to; soothe. To satisfy or relieve: appease one's thirst. To pacify or attempt to pacify (an enemy) by granting concessions, often at the expense of principle) and God has granted the concession, then it wouldn't make sense to punish the sinner...now would it.

Did you read what I said?

Well lets assume that the sins of the whole world have been taken away. Why couldn't the unbelievers still be punished?

What are you going to say? Are you going to claim it would be unjust, or wouldn't make much sense?

In which case, I would point out that your own position is blatantly unjust and doesn't make much sense. If you want to talk about justice, as the article you quoted did indeed do, your position gets smashed to bits for the kind of reason that Drew has mentioned.

(Unless you can answer that point, which I am guessing that you can't...)

I agree that it wouldn't make much sense, but your own position has the same problem.

 

[DivineNames]

I know that you have argued that any "free will act" puts man in a position where he can "boast" of his salvation. I have never found this argument to be convincing. It seems to be the same kind of argument as if I said the following. "Fred was drowning and Joe threw him a rope. Fred grabbed the rope and Joe dragged Fred out of the water. Fred is responsible for saving himself from drowning" Strictly speaking, it is true that if Fred had not grabbed the rope he would have drowned. So it is true that Fred's fate did depend on Fred's actions.

However, I would claim that any common sense interpretation of this drowning account would lead one to conclude that it is Joe that is responsible for the salvation of Fred, not Fred himself. Fred has no basis to boast. To argue that Fred was "responsible" for his own salvation is to press technicalities to the point of absurdity. I need to flesh this argument out a bit more, I admit. Hopefully in a later post.

I thought this was a good example in support of your claim.

I will put forward an issue which may possibly be relevant- If a drowning man grabs a rope we wouldn't think that this has anything to do with his own goodness, they are just trying to save their own life. However, if someone freely chooses to be saved by Jesus is that a matter of goodness on the part of the individual?

 

[DivineNames]

(Heb 10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.) results in the perfection for whom that sacrifice was offered, the whole of humanity will in fact be saved.

Is this necessarily talking about everyone for who he was sacrificed?

 

[DivineNames]

John 1:29
The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

What is the context? How did Christ take away the sins of the 'world?' If world means the entire mass of mankind then all mankind would be saved.

I think the verse could plausibly be read as emphasizing that the Jesus sacrifice had liberated the world, having a meaning compatible with providing the opportunity for everyone's sin to be taken away.

I can't see that this would take more liberty with the text than what you claim. (World = the elect).

 

[DivineNames]

Rom 3:23-25 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

Propitiation means:

• Satisfactory
  To satisfy; to appease.
  Satisfaction; appeasement

"through faith in his blood"

So it could well be that the sacrifice works for a person through faith.

(Whether we are free to have faith is another question.)

 

[JM]

Rom 3:23-25 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

Propitiation means:

• Satisfactory
  To satisfy; to appease.
  Satisfaction; appeasement

"through faith in his blood"

So it could well be that the sacrifice works for a person through faith.

(Whether we are free to have faith is another question.)

Yes, faith is a work. John 6:29 We are saved by Grace and not works.

 

[JM]

Once again, no Scripture just empty words.

Sorry, but they aren't, "empty words". Your position is easily smashed to bits. You can't answer the argument that has been made against it. If you think that an argument not depending on the Bible is necessarily "empty", well that is your problem. :D

We agree then, your argument does not depend on the Bible.

And anyway, I have provided a Biblical objection to your position in a different thread and you just ignored it. Perhaps you can answer that point? Perhaps you would acknowledge the verse as a problem, but still believe your position is the most consistent with scripture? Whatever the case, stop saying no scripture has been provided because it freaking has!

Hummm, no it hasn't. Where is it? Not in this thread.

 

[JM]

I know that you have argued that any "free will act" puts man in a position where he can "boast" of his salvation. I have never found this argument to be convincing. It seems to be the same kind of argument as if I said the following. "Fred was drowning and Joe threw him a rope. Fred grabbed the rope and Joe dragged Fred out of the water. Fred is responsible for saving himself from drowning" Strictly speaking, it is true that if Fred had not grabbed the rope he would have drowned. So it is true that Fred's fate did depend on Fred's actions.

However, I would claim that any common sense interpretation of this drowning account would lead one to conclude that it is Joe that is responsible for the salvation of Fred, not Fred himself. Fred has no basis to boast. To argue that Fred was "responsible" for his own salvation is to press technicalities to the point of absurdity. I need to flesh this argument out a bit more, I admit. Hopefully in a later post.

I thought this was a good example in support of your claim.

I will put forward an issue which may possibly be relevant- If a drowning man grabs a rope we wouldn't think that this has anything to do with his own goodness, they are just trying to save their own life. However, if someone freely chooses to be saved by Jesus is that a matter of goodness on the part of the individual?

lol, no one is drowning. The Bible tells us we are DEAD in sin, not sick in sin. How can the dead 'grab the rope?' They can't. These are foolish games you're playing.

 

[JM]

(Heb 10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.) results in the perfection for whom that sacrifice was offered, the whole of humanity will in fact be saved.

Is this necessarily talking about everyone for who he was sacrificed?

Yes.

 

[JM]

John 1:29
The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

What is the context? How did Christ take away the sins of the 'world?' If world means the entire mass of mankind then all mankind would be saved.

I think the verse could plausibly be read as emphasizing that the Jesus sacrifice had liberated the world, having a meaning compatible with providing the opportunity for everyone's sin to be taken away.

I can't see that this would take more liberty with the text than what you claim. (World = the elect).

I'm not adding 'world of the elect.' That's plain silly to suggest. The term 'world' to a Jewish believer means the inclusion of the Gentiles, it's also hyperbole. I've wrote this many times and don't feel like going thru it again, but I'll provide one example.

Luk 2:1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.

We see the use of the term 'world.' Does it really mean the whole mass of human kind? No it doesn't. If you allow for your understanding, then we should be able to expect the taxation of the Japanese, Koreans, Chinese, etc. World doesn't mean the whole mass of human kind. We need to allow the context of clear passages to explain how we are to view 'world' in each case.

"I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine."

Jesus tells us who He is praying for, and it's not every single person in the whole. If Christ is praying for everyone, then we must also believe God the Father isn't hearing the prayer of God the Son and we have disunity in the Godhead.

Any comments on Matt. 23:37?

 

[Drew]

lol, no one is drowning. The Bible tells us we are DEAD in sin, not sick in sin. How can the dead 'grab the rope?' They can't. These are foolish games you're playing.

I suggest that when the scriptures say that men are "dead" in sin, this means that they "judicially" deserve the punishment for sin - death. This does not mean that they are cognitively dead. The unredeemed are clearly not dead - they walk around, make decisions, etc. So a person who is "dead" in his sins is clearly not incapacitated to the point that he cannot "grab" the rope of salvation.

 

[JM]

lol, no one is drowning. The Bible tells us we are DEAD in sin, not sick in sin. How can the dead 'grab the rope?' They can't. These are foolish games you're playing.

I suggest that when the scriptures say that men are "dead" in sin, this means that they "judicially" deserve the punishment for sin - death. This does not mean that they are cognitively dead. The unredeemed are clearly not dead - they walk around, make decisions, etc. So a person who is "dead" in his sins is clearly not incapacitated to the point that he cannot "grab" the rope of salvation.

Hey Drew, I'm from Ontario as well.

I disagree based on the context: Eph 2:5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)

If we are judicially dead in sins, how are we now quickened with Christ? In John 3 we see that when you are regenerated we pass from death to life, if this is judicially, you'll have to provide a context so we can examine it.

According to Thayer the word 'dead' in Eph. 2 is passed tense, and the literal meaning is given first.

1a) one that has breathed his last, lifeless
1b) deceased, departed, one whose soul is in heaven or hell
1c) destitute of life, without life, inanimate

The word 'nekros' in Eph. 2 is the same word used to mean a literal form of 'dead' as found in 132 occurrences: Mat_8:22 (2), Mat_10:8, Mat_11:5, Mat_14:2, Mat_17:9, Mat_22:31-32 (2), Mat_23:27, Mat_27:64, Mat_28:4, Mat_28:7, Mar_6:14, Mar_6:16, Mar_9:9-10 (2), Mar_9:26, Mar_12:25-27 (3), Luk_7:15, Luk_7:22, Luk_9:7, Luk_9:60 (2), Luk_15:24, Luk_15:32, Luk_16:30-31 (2), Luk_20:35, Luk_20:37-38 (2), Luk_24:5, Luk_24:46, Joh_2:22, Joh_5:21, Joh_5:25, Joh_12:1, Joh_12:9, Joh_12:17, Joh_20:9, Act_3:14-15 (2), Act_4:2, Act_5:10 (2), Act_10:41-42 (2), Act_13:30, Act_13:34, Act_17:3, Act_17:31-32 (2), Act_20:9, Act_23:6, Act_24:15, Act_24:21, Act_26:8, Act_26:23, Act_28:6, Rom_1:4, Rom_4:17, Rom_4:24, Rom_6:4, Rom_6:9, Rom_6:11, Rom_6:13, Rom_7:4, Rom_7:8, Rom_8:10-11 (3), Rom_10:7, Rom_10:9, Rom_11:15, Rom_14:9, 1 Cor 15 (14), 1 Cor 15 (14), 2Co_1:9, Gal_1:1, Eph_1:20, Eph_2:1, Eph_2:5, Eph_5:14, Phi_3:11, Col_1:18, Col_2:12-13 (2), 1Th_1:10, 1Th_4:16, 2Ti_2:8, 2Ti_4:1, Heb_6:1-2 (2), Heb_9:14, Heb_9:17, Heb_11:19, Heb_11:35, Heb_13:20, Jam_2:17, Jam_2:20, Jam_2:26 (2), 1Pe_1:3, 1Pe_1:21, 1Pe_4:5-6 (2), Rev_1:5, Rev_1:17-18 (2), Rev_2:8, Rev_3:1, Rev_11:18, Rev_14:13, Rev_16:3, Rev_20:13

 

[DivineNames]

John 1:29
The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

What is the context? How did Christ take away the sins of the 'world?' If world means the entire mass of mankind then all mankind would be saved.

I think the verse could plausibly be read as emphasizing that the Jesus sacrifice had liberated the world, having a meaning compatible with providing the opportunity for everyone's sin to be taken away.

I can't see that this would take more liberty with the text than what you claim. (World = the elect).

I'm not adding 'world of the elect.' That's plain silly to suggest.

I didn't say "world of the elect", I said, "world = the elect", for you. I thought this was what you believed!

If not, who does Jesus die for?

 

[DivineNames]

Hummm, no it hasn't. Where is it? Not in this thread.

1 Timothy 2:1 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;

1 Timothy 2:2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.

Praying for those in authority would include Kings that were persecuting the church at the time. Herod, Roman magistrates even a man like Nero. etc.

1 Timothy 2:3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;

1 Timothy 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

But yeah, the verse does seem to support your claim.

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopi ... 8&start=15

Can you answer this?

The idea being that the verses support the notion that God wants everyone to be saved.

 

[DivineNames]

(Heb 10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.) results in the perfection for whom that sacrifice was offered, the whole of humanity will in fact be saved.

Is this necessarily talking about everyone for who he was sacrificed?

Yes.

I guess I can just say, "No", you are wrong about that.

 

[DivineNames]

When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. He told them, "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that, "'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!'" (Mark 4:10-12 NIV)

This verse rather suggests that people do have the ability to turn to God, were it not for the message being deliberately obscured.

 

[DivineNames]

Was the death of Christ powerful enough to save or just make salvation possible? If it's just possible, if it's like AMway (a plan to work) then man can boast in his salvation because when it all comes down to it...it was his will that determined his salvation. That's exactly what you're saying. Man's freewill determines his salvation.

I know that you have argued that any "free will act" puts man in a position where he can "boast" of his salvation. I have never found this argument to be convincing. It seems to be the same kind of argument as if I said the following. "Fred was drowning and Joe threw him a rope. Fred grabbed the rope and Joe dragged Fred out of the water. Fred is responsible for saving himself from drowning" Strictly speaking, it is true that if Fred had not grabbed the rope he would have drowned. So it is true that Fred's fate did depend on Fred's actions.

However, I would claim that any common sense interpretation of this drowning account would lead one to conclude that it is Joe that is responsible for the salvation of Fred, not Fred himself. Fred has no basis to boast. To argue that Fred was "responsible" for his own salvation is to press technicalities to the point of absurdity. I need to flesh this argument out a bit more, I admit. Hopefully in a later post.

lol, no one is drowning. The Bible tells us we are DEAD in sin, not sick in sin. How can the dead 'grab the rope?' They can't. These are foolish games you're playing.

If anyone is playing "games" it is you JM.

Drew was addressing the point you made. How did you respond? By changing the subject. The issue being addressed was whether free choice involved in salvation would allow someone to boast. When you responded, you shifted the issue to whether scripture supports the notion of a free choice being involved in salvation.

Obviously what the Bible teaches on this point is an important issue. But that doesn't change the fact that you are guilty of a sleazy and dishonest maneuver.

 

[JM]

Was the death of Christ powerful enough to save or just make salvation possible? If it's just possible, if it's like AMway (a plan to work) then man can boast in his salvation because when it all comes down to it...it was his will that determined his salvation. That's exactly what you're saying. Man's freewill determines his salvation.

I know that you have argued that any "free will act" puts man in a position where he can "boast" of his salvation. I have never found this argument to be convincing. It seems to be the same kind of argument as if I said the following. "Fred was drowning and Joe threw him a rope. Fred grabbed the rope and Joe dragged Fred out of the water. Fred is responsible for saving himself from drowning" Strictly speaking, it is true that if Fred had not grabbed the rope he would have drowned. So it is true that Fred's fate did depend on Fred's actions.

However, I would claim that any common sense interpretation of this drowning account would lead one to conclude that it is Joe that is responsible for the salvation of Fred, not Fred himself. Fred has no basis to boast. To argue that Fred was "responsible" for his own salvation is to press technicalities to the point of absurdity. I need to flesh this argument out a bit more, I admit. Hopefully in a later post.

lol, no one is drowning. The Bible tells us we are DEAD in sin, not sick in sin. How can the dead 'grab the rope?' They can't. These are foolish games you're playing.

If anyone is playing "games" it is you JM.

Drew was addressing the point you made. How did you respond? By changing the subject. The issue being addressed was whether free choice involved in salvation would allow someone to boast. When you responded, you shifted the issue to whether scripture supports the notion of a free choice being involved in salvation.

Obviously what the Bible teaches on this point is an important issue. But that doesn't change the fact that you are guilty of a sleazy and dishonest maneuver.

Personal attacks? That’s a sign you’re getting desperate. You claim I'm using sleazy and dishonest manoeuvring when that’s exactly what you keep doing. This topic is about atonement and you go off topic by introducing elements of total inability, irresistible Grace and election. You post scripture that has nothing to do with ATONEMENT and then have the nerve to try and tilt my arguments that you can’t deal with. Did I resort to name calling? No. Have you offered any comments on the passages that deal with ATONEMENT (I’ll have to keep reminding you what the topic is about), no you haven’t. I offered an exegesis on Matt. 23 and 2 Tim. 2 which you haven’t responded to. I’ve offered a simple exegesis on the high Priestly prayer offered by Christ in John 17, with comments on John 6 and Hebrews 10 (which deals with ATONEMENT). How do you respond? To put it in your own words, “with sleazy and dishonest manoeuvring†and offer a link to a thread you made on ‘Election’ which once again is not the topic of this thread.

We should just have a formal debate with rules, etc.

Here’s the outline I suggest:

I’ll post what I believe the ATONEMENT accomplished a statement of the doctrine; you then do the same (and please do your best to stay on topic).
I’ll post comments on your statement; you then do the same on my statement.
I’ll respond with a rebuttal post, you then do the same.
I’ll ask direct questions based upon the posts you’ve made, you respond.
Then you asked direct questions based upon the posts I’ve made, I’ll respond.

Then I’ll offer closing remarks.
You do the same.

Who goes first is up to you, please refrain from naming calling and please stay on topic. It’s a tactic in debating to keep switching topics or going off topic as you have done, this is called a ‘red herring.’ I’ll have to ask that you keep you comments in line with the topic.

Are you game? We can start at T of the TULIP and go thru the whole flower if you'd like, one petal at a time...keeping each one separate that's five debates.

Maybe Vic can mod the debate for us so you will stay on topic.

 

[JM]

Was the death of Christ powerful enough to save or just make salvation possible? If it's just possible, if it's like AMway (a plan to work) then man can boast in his salvation because when it all comes down to it...it was his will that determined his salvation. That's exactly what you're saying. Man's freewill determines his salvation.

I know that you have argued that any "free will act" puts man in a position where he can "boast" of his salvation. I have never found this argument to be convincing. It seems to be the same kind of argument as if I said the following. "Fred was drowning and Joe threw him a rope. Fred grabbed the rope and Joe dragged Fred out of the water. Fred is responsible for saving himself from drowning" Strictly speaking, it is true that if Fred had not grabbed the rope he would have drowned. So it is true that Fred's fate did depend on Fred's actions.

However, I would claim that any common sense interpretation of this drowning account would lead one to conclude that it is Joe that is responsible for the salvation of Fred, not Fred himself. Fred has no basis to boast. To argue that Fred was "responsible" for his own salvation is to press technicalities to the point of absurdity. I need to flesh this argument out a bit more, I admit. Hopefully in a later post.

PS: Illustrations do not prove arguments, silly fart, they only ‘ILLISTRATE’ a point. Lol, didn’t you know that? When discussing a topic we don’t need to engage illustrations for two reasons 1) the only deal in providing a better understanding of your stance and 2) they’re incapable of proving your point.

Lets just stay on topic, you’ll find I give answer to your questions when you do so, forget that. Lets draw up some rules and have a formal debate.