Particular Redemption/Limited Atonement

[Drew]

Hi JM:

I realize that you are debating with both DN and me "in parallel". I know that this may keep you hopping, but would you consider taking a crack at the 5 items I posted on Friday Feb 24 at 12:55 PM (eastern time). I believe those items are reasonably clear and focused. If you have any specific questions for me, I would be glad to take a shot......

 

[JM]

Hi JM:

I realize that you are debating with both DN and me "in parallel". I know that this may keep you hopping, but would you consider taking a crack at the 5 items I posted on Friday Feb 24 at 12:55 PM (eastern time). I believe those items are reasonably clear and focused. If you have any specific questions for me, I would be glad to take a shot......

Hello JM:

and hello Drew.

I am not sure I understand much of your recent post. Let my try to summarize where I am coming from and perhaps you can respond. I also ask for your input on certain things.

1. What is your specific case that Christ only died for some (I assume that you believe this)? I am hoping that you post scriptures and then explain in your own words, how the scripture that you post "proves" that Christ did not die for all.

lol, sorry for not giving an answer to this post. I’m debating in three forums right now, and still finding time to study! I thought I gave an answer to this question, but with so much talk about man’s ability to choose, I guess I offered the answer in another thread.

Christ made one sacrifice (Heb 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God) for the sins the world and this sacrifice (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 perfected. Until now, I’ve tried not to use theological terms but here’s one: federal headship. This means that Christ died for His people, just as Adam passed sin onto all men, Christ died for the people the Father has given Him with a purpose in mind to save them. Please read Romans 5. Definition: “is used to designate any action or word or thing as reckoned to a person. Thus in doctrinal language (1) the sin of Adam is imputed to all his descendants, i.e., it is reckoned as theirs, and they are dealt with therefore as guilty; (2) the righteousness of Christ is imputed to them that believe in him, or so attributed to them as to be considered their own; and (3) our sins are imputed to Christ, i.e., he assumed our "law-place," undertook to answer the demands of justice for our sins. In all these cases the nature of imputation is the same (Rom. 5:12-19; comp. Philemon 1:18, 19)â€Â. - Easton Bible Dictionary

2. You seem to argue that if Christ died for all, then all would be saved and since we know that not all will be saved, then Christ could not have died for all. However, this argument (as I have expressed it) is open to following counter-argument: You have assumed that Christ's death is fully sufficient for human salvation - no free will act of "acceptance" on the part of the person is needed. You need to justify this assumption (see point 3 for a related question). I believe that your justification is based on the argument that man cannot do any kind of "work" that contributes to his salvation, even a simple act of acceptance, since this would cause man to be a "determining agent" in his salvation - the "lest any man should boast" argument. I do not think this argument works as I will argue in point 3.

Drew, what you’re saying (correct me if I’m wrong), that Christ’s death sets up a system to be used by fallen man? Atonement means just that, we are now at one with Christ. Propitiation means God has been appeased. If Christ’s death was the atonement and His offering propitiatory, then we are now at one with God the Father when we are IN Christ and God’s wrath toward the sinner for whom Christ died has been removed. Man cannot please God while in the flesh…that is what I’m saying Drew. Is faith pleasing to God? Yes it is. Is truth saving faith pleasing to God? Yes it is. So how does one please God while in the flesh? They can’t. That’s what Paul wrote in Romans 8:8 “So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.†If you read the chapter as a whole, it becomes clear. We also know that faith is the work of God as it reads in John 6:38-40 where the followers ask ‘what work can I perform’ (which sets up the context) and Christ says ‘this is the work of God, that you believe.’ It’s a work. You’ll also notice one of the gifts of the Spirit is faithfulness. The root word for the Greek is faith, faith is a gift of the Spirit. See how easy it is to get off the topic of the Atonement? Lol Good questions.

3 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.

Ok, I didn’t answer DN on this because this deals with human ability while in the flesh and not the atonement, correct? But I’ll play anyways… When discussing a topic we don’t need to engage illustrations for two reasons 1) they only deal in providing a better understanding of your stance and 2) they’re incapable of proving your point because it’s not based on the facts we are discussing.

Fred is still responsible for himself no matter what, even if he’s unable to change. The scriptures tell us that man is dead in sin. Fred is a dead in sin sinner and does what sinners do, SIN. 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

Say Fred gets drunk and gets behind the wheel of a car. He runs into another car while totally intoxicated and kills the driver of the other vehicle. Is Fred still guilty of killing the other driver? Or do we let Fred off because he said, ‘Judge I was too drunk to know what I was doing, it’s not my fault.’ The law is clear (just like the law in scripture), if you drive drunk and kill someone you’re guilty of that crime. Man is dead in sin and loves it. Man’s will is a slave to sin (I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin; They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity - for a man is a slave to whatever has mastered him.; though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted.) , the nature man is hostile toward God ("The carnal mind is enmity against God"â€â€Romans 8:7.)

According to arminian logic, the drunk should be let off because he’s not really dead in sin. Think about the word dead for a second, are there degrees of dead? Are some more dead then others and is that why they don’t accept?

4. What do you make of texts like 2 Peter 3:9: "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance."

How do I view the above passage? Simple: This passage isn’t speaking of salvation but bring men to repentance (v. 10 the day of the Lord is in view). Many assume that ‘you’ includes the world and this idea is based upon your presuppositions about salvation and God in general. This is natural. Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ: Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord, According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: Peter is speaking to those who have ‘obtained’ the gift of God already, this epistle is not written to all mankind but to the saved. The context then should be viewed in light of the audience to whom the epistle is written. As the Geneva Bible states, “A reason why the last day does not come too soon, because God patiently waits until all the elect are brought to repentance, that none of them may perish.â€Â

5. A "technical" point about the nature of making a case. When anyone cites verse "X" in defence of position "A" and only A, they need to realize that it is not enough to show that X supports A - they need to show how X cannot be consistent with position "B". Please state whether you agree with this general principle.

Oh yes, I agree with this point. That’s why I believe the atonement was limited to the elect. It’s impossible for the Father not to hear the Son’s prayer (John 17), it’s impossible for man to be dead in sin (this means spiritually dead not physically dead) and respond to the spiritual message of the Gospel, it’s impossible for God to be in control/sovereign and man to be able to over rule God. God is love and doesn’t owe anyone salvation but He saved some.

Now, I have a few questions for those who deny Christ’s death had the intent to save a people.
1/ Do you (or anyone else for that matter) believe God is unjust if He chooses to save only some of humanity?
2/ The common understanding found among the objectors of particular redemption seem to have the idea that God provided a sacrifice for the sin of every single person in the world. Going back to Drew’s point made in #5, does it make sense to provide a sacrifice for every single person in the world and then not supply a way or a plan for every single person to accept or reject that offer?
3/ Please define atonement and propitiation.
4/ Dr. B.B. Warfield wrote, “Things we have to choose between are an atonement of high value, (particular) or an atonement of wide extension (universal).†Do you agree? Why or why not?
5/ Please offer an exegesis on Matt. 20:28, explain why the word “many†is used and how it fits into universal atonement.
6/ A question using rationalism. Would God who is sovereign and able to carry out His plan for the redemption of man never accomplish that plan or adopt a plan for an end in which is never attained? Think about it this why, if God wants to save everyone and makes a plan to do so, is it rational for Him (the all powerful) not to follow that plan or use that plan and not allow for it to be accomplished?
7/ In the Gospel of John Christ tells us, “I lay down my life for the sheep.†If Christ laid down His life for the sheep (and not all are His sheep, “Ye are not my sheepâ€Â), wouldn’t those sheep benefit from Christ’s death? Who are the sheep and why are why are they different from the other sheep that are not Christ’s?
8/ What does it mean when we read, “Christ loved the Church and gave Himself for it.†Eph. 5:25; “feed the church of the Lord which is purchased with His own blood†Acts 20:28?
9/ In OT times the high Priest offered sacrifices on the day of Atonement for the sins of Israel only, considering all that’s been posted so far (keeping in mind the high Priestly prayer of Christ in mind, “I pray for them, not for the worldâ€Â), how do you reconcile the OT type with the NT fulfillment? ***Remember only Israel benefited for the OT offerings, most of mankind was excluded.***
10/ (Starting from the Arminian view point)…what causes some to reject the Gospel offer? Is it the preacher’s style, or maybe the illustrations (of Fred) being used? If it’s the conviction of the Holy Spirit, why doesn’t the Holy Spirit convict everyone? A litter deeper…If Christ died for every individual person in the world and the Holy Spirit convicts sinners of sin and the atonement’s intent was to saved everyone, why doesn’t the Holy Spirit convict everyone of sin?
11/ How many ways degrees of 'dead' are there?

I have more questions, but I’ll wait. I’m still hoping to have a formal one on one debate on the TULIP to try and keep all the arguments in one thread.

Peace.
j
Works Referenced:
John Gill's Bible Commentary
The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination by Bottner
Potter's Freedom

 

[DivineNames]

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.

Why would I be "desperate" over an issue like this? I am not even a Christian!

I notice that you didn't actually respond to the accusation that I made. Is that because you are guilty as charged and can't defend the point? Anyone who can read can see that you did it...

I have no problem making a "personal attack" when the person is actually guilty of what I say. Sorry, but this doesn't show that I am, "desperate".

With regard to me going off topic, I had no idea that you wanted to keep discussion in the thread to one specific area.

 

[DivineNames]

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.

Have you never heard of argument from analogy?

An argument from analogy involves the drawing of a conclusion about one object or event because the same can obviously be said about a similar object or event. The strength of any argument from analogy largely depends on the strength and relevance of the employed analogy.

Here is the general structure of an argument from analogy:

x applies in case A (this should be an uncontroversial premise)
case A is relevantly similar to case B
Therefore, x applies in case B

http://www.iscid.org/encyclopedia/Argument_from_Analogy

Inductive inferences do not guarantee the truth of their conclusions, but they certainly do support them. (Assuming the argument is good.)

 

[DivineNames]

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.

Firstly, there is no obligation on me to respond to everything you say. Secondly, what was provided were certain verses which do seem to be relevant to the issue of atonement.

 

[DivineNames]

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.

These verses do seem to be relevant to the "extent" of the atonement. Can you answer the point?

 

[DivineNames]

This may be "off topic" for you JM, sorry...

Then Jesus began to denounce the cities in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent. "Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths. If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you." (Matthew 11:20-24 NIV)

The words of Jesus, quoted above, obviously assume that people have the ability to repent and turn to God. How else would his words make any sense?

Why go off on a rant, if the people never had the ability to repent in the first place? Did Jesus perform miracles for people who couldn't repent, and then get angry with them because they didn't respond? How much of an idiot would that make Jesus? It would be like trying to teach a horse to speak english, and then getting angry and going off on a rant when it fails!

Jesus says-

If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago

As I read it, Jesus is saying that the miracles he performed should have been enough to get the people to repent. And this requires that they have the ability to turn to God. If they don't have that ability, then the showing of miracles is irrelevant.

 

[DivineNames]

What JM nicely illustrates, is that if you reject morality*, and reject reason, in favour of what you understand to be the, "word of God", then you can go along with anything no matter how bonkers or evil it is.

:o


* i.e. common standards of morality in their application to God/religion.

 

[Drew]

1. What is your specific case that Christ only died for some (I assume that you believe this)? I am hoping that you post scriptures and then explain in your own words, how the scripture that you post "proves" that Christ did not die for all.

Christ made one sacrifice (Heb 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God) for the sins the world and this sacrifice (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 perfected.

To keep things brief and readable, I will respond to your post with a number of posts. The intent of this post is to deal with part of what you say in your response to my item number 1.

At the risk of seeming pedantic, the following statement seems to be incorrectly worded (I have removed the material in the brackets):

Christ made one sacrifice for the sins the world and this sacrifice results in the perfection for whom that sacrifice was offered, the whole of humanity will in fact be perfected

I suspect that your intent was something like:

1. If Christ died for all men, then all men would be saved and wind up in Heaven.

2. We know that all men will not wind up in Heaven.

3. Therefore Christ could not have died for all men.

I agree with point 2, but think there is a hidden assumption in point 1.

As has been pointed out before, this argument has a built-in assumption, namely that Jesus' death is fully and totally sufficient for salvation (i.e. nothing else has to happen above and beyond Jesus' act of sacrifice) You need to justify this assumption and I do not know that you have (please justify or point me to a post where you clearly and squarely address this issue). Without such a justification, your thesis is not supported. It seems that you simply ignore the possibility that an "act of acceptance" is also required in order for Christ's death to put people into heaven.

If you can actually justify the claim that Christ's death is the only condition condition that has to be fulfilled, then I think your Biblical case would actually be quite strong.

 

[DivineNames]

As has been pointed out before, this argument has a built-in assumption, namely that Jesus' death is fully and totally sufficient for salvation (i.e. nothing else has to happen above and beyond Jesus' act of sacrifice) You need to justify this assumption and I do not know that you have (please justify or point me to a post where you clearly and squarely address this issue). Without such a justification, your thesis is not supported. It seems that you simply ignore the possibility that an "act of acceptance" is also required in order for Christ's death to put people into heaven.

Something I previously quoted-

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 suggests that your sins are forgiven when you turn to God, it seems that an "act of acceptance" is indeed required.

 

[Drew]

1. What is your specific case that Christ only died for some (I assume that you believe this)? I am hoping that you post scriptures and then explain in your own words, how the scripture that you post "proves" that Christ did not die for all.

Until now, I’ve tried not to use theological terms but here’s one: federal headship. This means that Christ died for His people, just as Adam passed sin onto all men, Christ died for the people the Father has given Him with a purpose in mind to save them. Please read Romans 5. Definition: “is used to designate any action or word or thing as reckoned to a person. Thus in doctrinal language (1) the sin of Adam is imputed to all his descendants, i.e., it is reckoned as theirs, and they are dealt with therefore as guilty; (2) the righteousness of Christ is imputed to them that believe in him, or so attributed to them as to be considered their own; and (3) our sins are imputed to Christ, i.e., he assumed our "law-place," undertook to answer the demands of justice for our sins. In all these cases the nature of imputation is the same (Rom. 5:12-19; comp. Philemon 1:18, 19)â€Â. - Easton Bible Dictionary

Believe me, I am not trying to be difficult, but I do not see any material in this quote that in any way makes your case. Where, in this material, do you specifically argue that the scope of those to have the possibility of being saved is actually a sub-set of all humankind. As I suspect you can anticipate, I will assert that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to precisely those people who accept the gift. I read Romans 5. Where in Romans 5 is it stated or implied that the offer of salvation is not made to all men. In fact, I find that Romans 5:18 suggests the opposite of what I think you are arguing for:

Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.

Perhaps I do not understand your position. I believe that you are arguing for "limted atonement", which I understand to be the belief some men do not even have the possiblility of achieving salvation.

 

[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.

Ok, I didn’t answer DN on this because this deals with human ability while in the flesh and not the atonement, correct? But I’ll play anyways… When discussing a topic we don’t need to engage illustrations for two reasons 1) they only deal in providing a better understanding of your stance and 2) they’re incapable of proving your point because it’s not based on the facts we are discussing.

Fred is still responsible for himself no matter what, even if he’s unable to change. The scriptures tell us that man is dead in sin. Fred is a dead in sin sinner and does what sinners do, SIN.

JM, this is completely irrelevant. You are still guilty of trying to shift the issue! To properly respond to the point, you should be considering the possibility of free will being involved in salvation, whether it would really allow for someone to boast.

Ok, I didn’t answer DN on this because this deals with human ability while in the flesh and not the atonement, correct?

What? You started this issue-

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.

And also-

they’re incapable of proving your point because it’s not based on the facts we are discussing.

If your point is that the example can't prove what the Bible teaches then that is completely irrelevant. That isn't what Drew was trying to show.

 

[Drew]

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?

I think that I have to bite the bullet and "confess" that, indeed, the act of choosing to accept the gift of salvation is a "smart", or "wise", "meritorious" act (I am not sure if you mean "good" in the sense of morally good or in the sense of "just plain smart"). I am willing to admit that Fred's decision to accept Christ at least has something to do with his own "wisdom", although not necessarily with his moral goodness.

 

[DivineNames]

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.

For the two reasons given, this is all nonsense.

(lol) :-D

 

[JM]

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.

For the two reasons given, this is all nonsense.

(lol) :-D

Your argument of analogy is one that must be based on similarities of this situation, because the scriptures say we are dead in sin, your analogy fell apart. No one is able to 'grab' the rope if they're dead. That's what is nonsense, the idea that the dead can respond. To correct your analogy the person would have to have already drowned. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/wanalogy.html Weak Analogy

I didn't realize you were not a Christian, I would have never discussed any of these deeper issues of the faith with you if I would have known that.

Drew, I'll respond to you latter tonight. Peace.

 

[JM]

I suspect that your intent was something like:

1. If Christ died for all men, then all men would be saved and wind up in Heaven.

2. We know that all men will not wind up in Heaven.

3. Therefore Christ could not have died for all men.

I agree with point 2, but think there is a hidden assumption in point 1.

As has been pointed out before, this argument has a built-in assumption, namely that Jesus' death is fully and totally sufficient for salvation (i.e. nothing else has to happen above and beyond Jesus' act of sacrifice) You need to justify this assumption and I do not know that you have (please justify or point me to a post where you clearly and squarely address this issue). Without such a justification, your thesis is not supported. It seems that you simply ignore the possibility that an "act of acceptance" is also required in order for Christ's death to put people into heaven.

If you can actually justify the claim that Christ's death is the only condition condition that has to be fulfilled, then I think your Biblical case would actually be quite strong.

In Hebrews 10, we find the result of the offering.

Christ’s death was substitutionary, in Matt. 20:28 we know that Christ’s death was instead. (The Greek word translated ‘for’ in this passage means instead.)

“For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:â€Â

Quote: Rev. 5.9: "Worthy art thou to take the book and to break its seals; for Thou was slain and didst purchased for God with Thy blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation." When agorazo is used in 1 Cor. 6.20, 7.23, and 2 Pet. 2.1, the meaning is clearly redemption through the atonement of Christ.

“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;â€Â

If the price of sin has been paid, and God’ wrath is removed from the sinner, God cannot ask for punishment. ‘Christ also hath once suffered for sins,’ for us and the penalty has been paid.

So, yes there is a hidden assumption, that being the penalty has been paid by our redeemer. John Owen wrote, “"If the death of Christ actually obtains redemption, cleansing, purification, bearing away sins, reconciliation, eternal life, and citizenship in a kingdom, then He must have died only for those who do get those things. It is not true that all men have those things, as is very clear! The salvation of all men therefore cannot have been the purpose of the death of Christ"
Luk 19:10 For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.

Christ died for us [Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.] bring us into a state of reconciliation with God [Rom 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.] Christ’s death bring us, for certain, into this state of reconciliation. AMEN!

Christ is our curse [Gal 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

Christ gave Himself for us [Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;]

Believe me, I am not trying to be difficult, but I do not see any material in this quote that in any way makes your case. Where, in this material, do you specifically argue that the scope of those to have the possibility of being saved is actually a sub-set of all humankind. As I suspect you can anticipate, I will assert that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to precisely those people who accept the gift. I read Romans 5. Where in Romans 5 is it stated or implied that the offer of salvation is not made to all men. In fact, I find that Romans 5:18 suggests the opposite of what I think you are arguing for:

Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.

The logical outcome, if you believe this passage teaches more then federal headship, is to believe that all will be saved. If all have sinned by Adam, then all are saved by Christ (v. 19). You can’t have it both ways. The context is set for the federal headship of the first Adam and the last Adam/Christ in v. 15 [much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.] So we see the federal headship of our Lord covers or abounds to many but not all. In v. 1 we see that Paul is speaking to believers because they already have peace with God.

Perhaps I do not understand your position. I believe that you are arguing for "limted atonement", which I understand to be the belief some men do not even have the possiblility of achieving salvation.

I like the choice of words you used Drew, ‘achieving’ salvation, proves you see it as a goal. Amen. So many think that man wants to be saved, they don’t, the fallen mind is set on the flesh as Paul tells us and is hostile.

Limited atonement means Christ’s death had a purpose and that purpose will be fulfilled.

I think that I have to bite the bullet and "confess" that, indeed, the act of choosing to accept the gift of salvation is a "smart", or "wise", "meritorious" act (I am not sure if you mean "good" in the sense of morally good or in the sense of "just plain smart"). I am willing to admit that Fred's decision to accept Christ at least has something to do with his own "wisdom", although not necessarily with his moral goodness.

Yes, you're onto it here, accept the gift would in the very least 'please God.' But Paul tells us we cannot please God in the flesh Romans 8. So, how does one have a saving faith before regeneration that God would accept?

I understand how many like to use illustrations to make a point, so I’ll borrow Fred the drowner for this one. Lol

Fred is floating on the top of the water dead. A guy comes by in a boat and yell’s, “are you ok,†but Fred doesn’t respond because he’s dead and dead people don’t respond. The guy in the boat reaches over the side and pull’s Fred’s body on board. He then performs CPR and Fred comes to and is thankful for the recuse.

Scripture tells us we are dead in sin, Fred has to be dead for the analogy to work, this ‘dead’ means spiritually dead and not physical. If you’re not willing to allow for Fred to be dead, try this one…

Fred’s drowning. He’s in the water going down fast. A guy in a boat comes by and offers to save him from drowning, problem is, Fred is hostile to the guy in the boat making the offer to help. Fred refuses to consider the help and gets mad at the guy in the boat…he hardens his heart against the offer. Fred drowns willingly.

Fred = sinner
Water = sin
Guy in boat = Christ
Hostile is found in enmity = Rom. 8:7; Eph. 2:15
Fred gets mad just as the sinner does when we share the Gospel offer, and if you’ve shared the Gospel with the uncoverted, you know what I mean.

To sum up, Fred is drowning in his own sin. Gospel is offered that would release him (set him free) from sin and it’s penalty. Even though Fred is misable in sin, he’s even more hostile to the offer made and will pay the price for being a slave to sin.

"The Arminians say, 'Christ died for all men.' Ask them what they mean by it. Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of all men? They say, 'No, certainly not.' We ask them the next question: Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of any man in particular? They answer 'No.' They are obliged to admit this, if they are consistent. They say, 'No; Christ has died that any man may be saved if ?' and then follow certain conditions of salvation. Now, who is it that limits the death of Christ? Why, you. You say that Christ did not die so as infallibly to secure the salvation of anybody. We beg your pardon, when you say we limit Christ's death; we say, 'No, my dear sir, it is you that do it.' We say Christ so died that he infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ's death not only may be saved, but are saved, must be saved and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved. You are welcome to your atonement; you may keep it. We will never renounce ours for the sake of it." -- Charles Haddon Spurgeon

Here’s a links to look up, maybe they’ll help answer some questions, but feel free to continue to post them here…I’ll do my best to give an answer.
http://www.heritageonline.org/propitiation.htm

 

[Drew]

2. You seem to argue that if Christ died for all, then all would be saved and since we know that not all will be saved, then Christ could not have died for all. However, this argument (as I have expressed it) is open to following counter-argument: You have assumed that Christ's death is fully sufficient for human salvation - no free will act of "acceptance" on the part of the person is needed. You need to justify this assumption (see point 3 for a related question). I believe that your justification is based on the argument that man cannot do any kind of "work" that contributes to his salvation, even a simple act of acceptance, since this would cause man to be a "determining agent" in his salvation - the "lest any man should boast" argument. I do not think this argument works as I will argue in point 3.

Drew, what you’re saying (correct me if I’m wrong), that Christ’s death sets up a system to be used by fallen man? Atonement means just that, we are now at one with Christ. Propitiation means God has been appeased. If Christ’s death was the atonement and His offering propitiatory, then we are now at one with God the Father when we are IN Christ and God’s wrath toward the sinner for whom Christ died has been removed. Man cannot please God while in the flesh…that is what I’m saying Drew. Is faith pleasing to God? Yes it is. Is truth saving faith pleasing to God? Yes it is. So how does one please God while in the flesh? They can’t. That’s what Paul wrote in Romans 8:8 “So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.†If you read the chapter as a whole, it becomes clear. We also know that faith is the work of God as it reads in John 6:38-40 where the followers ask ‘what work can I perform’ (which sets up the context) and Christ says ‘this is the work of God, that you believe.’ It’s a work. You’ll also notice one of the gifts of the Spirit is faithfulness. The root word for the Greek is faith, faith is a gift of the Spirit. See how easy it is to get off the topic of the Atonement? Lol Good questions.

I find this material hard to follow and not focused on my request that you justify the assumption that a free will act of acceptance is not required. You talk about faith being a work of God, originating from God. Fair enough. But, and I cannot emphasize this enough, your analysis does not address the conceptual distinction that legitimately exists between the content of a gift and the act of acceptance. One can agree that faith is a gift, even a work of God, and yet still maintain that there needs to be an act of acceptance.

I think that the point of view you are defending requires an unnaturally exaggerated definition of a work. I think you would have us believe that mere acceptance is a "work".

I cannot help but be reminded of the Pharisees and their exaggerated notions about what constitutes "work". They stretched the meaning of the term to the point of ridiculousness so that the mere act of taking a snack of wheat became a work. Now, I am not for a moment suggesting that you are like the Pharisees in terms of character. But I do sense that there might be an element of "hyper-technical" reasoning here.

Your position would be strengthened if you could make the case stick that we are "totally dead" to the point that we cannot even perform an act of acceptance. I know that you have tried to make this argument, but we know that "lost" souls are indeed not cognitively dead - they live life, make decisions - they clearly are cognitively alive.

 

[Drew]

Hi JM:

We seem to have reached an impasse. I do not see how how any of your posts actually take my questions seriously. Please consider asking a "neutral" friend whether your material really addresses my questions. I think it clearly does not. You seem like a capital fellow, but I worry that this is going nowhere.

I will continue to read your posts, but unless I see an attempt to answer my question (specifically my request to justify the assumption that Christ's death is fully sufficient for human salvation - no free will act of "acceptance" on the part of the person is needed), I may not continue the dialogue. Nothing personal, of course - you conduct yourself with a degree of politeness not often seen in these "contentious" discussions. I realize that you have also asked me some questions that I have yet to answer. I need to know that we have the same understanding of what constitutes a serious debate.

Again, no hard feelings please. I find this topic interesting and may start a thread or two of my own on related matters and I most certainly will continue to read and think about your posts. I used to have Calvinist leanings but I am, for the present, firmly in the Arminian camp. The point being, I have changed my mind in the past. A careful and precise argument might sway me back. Please consider that a well-intentioned challenge.....

 

[JM]

It seems you want a nice tidy package to be handed over to you, or to sit and ask questions with little given on your part. I've asked questions, and offered exegesis on the 'hard' passages you posted but you never comment and you've given few answers.

"To cut off the sinner from all reliance upon himself, his merits and his powers; and throw him, naked and helpless, into the hands of the Holy Spirit to lead him to Christ in faith; should be the one great aim of the ministry." Ichabod S. Spencer

I think that the point of view you are defending requires an unnaturally exaggerated definition of a work. I think you would have us believe that mere acceptance is a "work".

I cannot help but be reminded of the Pharisees and their exaggerated notions about what constitutes "work". They stretched the meaning of the term to the point of ridiculousness so that the mere act of taking a snack of wheat became a work. Now, I am not for a moment suggesting that you are like the Pharisees in terms of character. But I do sense that there might be an element of "hyper-technical" reasoning here.

Your position would be strengthened if you could make the case stick that we are "totally dead" to the point that we cannot even perform an act of acceptance. I know that you have tried to make this argument, but we know that "lost" souls are indeed not cognitively dead - they live life, make decisions - they clearly are cognitively alive.

Dictionary.com defines work as, “Physical or mental effort or activity directed toward the production or accomplishment of something.†Work is something you do, if that’s true, then believing in the Gospel is an activity to accomplish your salvation. As I posted before, it’s not as big of a stretch some might have you believe, the act of believing is something God does. This is clearly said in John 6 where the followers ask of Jesus what works can we do, and Christ answers, this is the work of God…etc. If you have a hard time seeing this, maybe you should start back at the beginning and re-read the text. I didn’t add anything that wasn’t there. The word work is defined above, it’s you who has re-defined the word and Christ tells us what that work is: believe on me.
As I did before, I posted what the term nekro means, and no comment on my post was given…just a flat out denial of what I posted without explanation on what was wrong with the definition given. Just a flat denial. Hummm. I’ll ask this question, but probably won’t get any interaction, how many degrees of dead are there? Can someone be dead, just a little? Lol No, they can’t. I cannot help but be reminded of work of Pelagius and his followers and their word play on ‘dead’ and ‘sin.’ The idea that a lost soul is cognitive and yet unpleasing to God is foreign to you but Paul teaches it and I posted verse after verse and you offer no interaction on those verses. No exegesis. No, you didn’t take the time to explain how I was in error.

We seem to have reached an impasse. I do not see how how any of your posts actually take my questions seriously.

I’ve offered answers with no interaction, are you even reading them? Have you attempted to answer the ten I posted?

Please consider asking a "neutral" friend whether your material really addresses my questions. I think it clearly does not. You seem like a capital fellow, but I worry that this is going nowhere.

I will continue to read your posts, but unless I see an attempt to answer my question (specifically my request to justify the assumption that Christ's death is fully sufficient for human salvation - no free will act of "acceptance" on the part of the person is needed), I may not continue the dialogue. Nothing personal, of course - you conduct yourself with a degree of politeness not often seen in these "contentious" discussions. I realize that you have also asked me some questions that I have yet to answer. I need to know that we have the same understanding of what constitutes a serious debate.

I understand. But this is not a serious debate, it’s very informal. We have folks popin’ in all the time. Thank you for the seeing the politeness in my aggressive posts, it’s just the style I have, and not many understand.

Again, no hard feelings please. I find this topic interesting and may start a thread or two of my own on related matters and I most certainly will continue to read and think about your posts. I used to have Calvinist leanings but I am, for the present, firmly in the Arminian camp. The point being, I have changed my mind in the past. A careful and precise argument might sway me back. Please consider that a well-intentioned challenge.....

One question you have to answer: Ontario Canada, right? Lol

Peace.

 

[DivineNames]

Your argument of analogy is one that must be based on similarities of this situation, because the scriptures say we are dead in sin, your analogy fell apart. No one is able to 'grab' the rope if they're dead. That's what is nonsense, the idea that the dead can respond. To correct your analogy the person would have to have already drowned. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/wanalogy.html Weak Analogy

lol :D

It isn't "my" analogy, it was given by Drew.

You started this issue. It is all relatively simple, but you can't follow the argument. I have told you twice before that you are guilty of shifting the issue but you keep on doing it!

You are talking more nonsense.

To legitimately find a weakness with the analogy, you should be looking for a relevant difference between the example given by Drew and the hypothesis that free choice is involved in Christian salvation. You shouldn't be trying to find a Biblical objection to that hypothesis, it doesn't help you with regard to the issue at stake.

Drew has not committed the logical fallacy you claim. You don't have a clue what you are talking about.