2 Corinthians 5:14-15 and the Atonement

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by icthus, May 6, 2005.

  1. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Passage:

    "For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead. And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again."

    Let me give you what Dr Robert Dabney, a leading Calvinstic theologian has to say on this passage.

    "In 2 Cor.v:15f, if we make the all for whom Christ died, mean only the 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" (Systematic Theology, p.525)

    Clearly another passage that teaches that the Atonement of Jesus Christ is "Universal", for "everyone without exception", and not just for the "elect". This much is also admitted by Dr Dabney.
     
  2. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Great ... another repetition of what Calvinists already believe. Why do you keep repeating this stuff as if it is new or revolutionary? Everyone here, who has been paying attention, knows that Calvinism already believes this.
     
  3. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Er umm.. can you say "limited atonement"???

    Why does a Calvinist ask "why" (an Arminian would argue for universal atoning sacrifice)??

    The point of the text "remains". Christ "died" (Atoning sacrifice) for all. The emphasis on is on the dying (sacrifice - suffering) not on the resurrection or High Priestly work of Christ in heaven "for us". The text zeroes in on the purpose and scope of the sufferings of Christ who "tasted the sufferings of death FOR EVERY MAN" Heb 2.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  4. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    Larry, I am now worrying about you. Have you got your head buried in the sand, or simply hard of understanding? You say that Calvinists already believe that this verse does not refer to the "elect" only, but to everyone without exception. If this is true, does it not follow from this that the Atonement of Jesus is equally for everyone?

    Again you will try to show that I am wrong in what I say, when you know full well that here is another passage that destroys the heresy called Limited Atonement.
     
  5. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Icthus,

    You know very well that my head is not buried in the sand, nor am I hard of understanding. I have cogently and correctly answered virtually everything you have put out here. I have shown time and time again that you simply do not know what you are talking about. You are embarrassing yourself with those who do.

    As for what Dabney actually says, it is hard to tell. I don't have him here. I do know from reading your quote that you quoted only a portion, and quoted a conditional sentence (if ...). Given your track record for quotes, there is no reason to think that you have accurately presented Dabney's position. You would do yourself well to go get an education somewhere so that you can learn about theology, Calvinism, and perhaps most importantly, how to carry on an ethical debate. Your tactics are deplorable, even worse than your knowledge. Please start taking this advice that I and others have offered many times. Go learn what you are talking about, and then come and talk about it.
     
  6. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    You can check out Dabney online here
    http://www.bible-centre.net/theology/books/dabney/st/dab-Index.html

    Then chapter 35 on the left index, and section, "From Texts Teaching A Seeming Universality"

    [ May 06, 2005, 09:41 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]
     
  7. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here is what Dabney said, from the Conclusion under the texts on a "seeming universality." (Shouldn't Icthus have learned from the word "seeming" where Dabney was going with this?)

    What do we find?

    1. Dabney believed in limited atonement with respect to the elect.
    2. Dabney said that the death of Christ did have benefits for the non-elect.

    What is ironic about this? You didn't have to read Dabney to find it out. It is exactly what I and others have been saying here all along.

    What else do we find out?
    1. Icthus misrepresented Dabney's position, by citing a conditional as if it were an actual. That is unethical argumentation, to make someone appear as if they believe something they don't.
    2. Icthus did not fully study his own link of Dabney's work. If he had, he would have seen the above paragraph and known that he drew a wrong conclusion from it.
    3. Icthus is repeating what he did before, when he cited Charles Hodge. He failed to put the quote in the context of Hodge's article and Hodge's theology, with the result that Icthus made Hodge appear as if he believed something he did not.

    This is unacceptable. When you present an argument, present it as it really stands. Never take someone's words and try to use them to make someone appear as believing something they don't. That is unethical and dishonest. If you cannot support your position with their words fairly, then do not use them.
     
  8. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wow! And you are meant to be a pastor? You accuse my of being dishonest and unethical for misrepresenting Dabney. Yet, his own words show that "the candid mind will admit", that passages like 2 Corinthians 5:v.15 cannot be taken to show that Jesus only died for the elect. He also gives John 3:16, and 1 John 2:1.

    I have never said anywhere that Dabney or Hodge did not believe in Limited Atonement, but point out to their own words on Scriptures that do not support this doctrine, as I have shown in the OP here.

    I have a hard copy of Dabney, and full aware of what he believes. And I find him to be more candid than the likes of you, who will not allow the Scriptures to speak for themselves, but must bear on them our own twisted distortions.

    You ought to reconsider your position as a pastor, as I feel with your attitude you will do more harm then good to those who hear your nonsense.
     
  9. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, I was meant to be a pastor. And the largest part of my job is doctrine and teaching. I have devoted my life to it, and thus, it is not hard to pick out the weaknesses of your arguments and even the unfortunate falseness of them. I have tried to deal with you gently and kindly, and even now, have responded only to the facts and in a manner that does not address your personally, but rather your argumentative techniques. I have been patient and gentle with you, probably for far longer than I should have. But the fact remain that in this instance (and several others) you were dishonest and unethical and you owe this forum an apology. This is not the first time this has happened.

    But you just did it again: You said their own words on Scriptures that do not support this doctrine. This is dishonest and unethical because you took a few words out of the context of their whole writing. Their writing shows that the words of Scripture do indeed supported the Calvinistic doctrine of the atonement. You lifted one phrase out of a whole section, and the whole section tells the whole story.

    I have been more than willing to let the Scriptures speak for themselves and you don't like that. You don't like someone who will stand up and go toe to toe with you and refute what you say with such ease and clarity. You are not used to someone who knows more than you do about what Calvinists believe. And you have not been able to handle it.

    In the future, do not misrepresent what people say. If you disagree, then disagree. That's fine. But realize that what Dabney said is the position known as limited atonement. Your problem is that you won't accept what limited atonement actually means.
     
  10. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    You said it, you were "meant" to be a pastor!

    Read Dabney's complete context and then tell me that I misquote him:

    "(B) From Texts Teaching A Seeming Universality.

    The other class of objections is from the Scriptures; e. g., Those which speak of Christ as having compassion for, or dying for, “the whole world,” “all,” “all men,” “every man,” John 1:29; John 3:16; 4:42; 6:51; 2 Cor. 5:19; 1 John 1; John 12:32; 1 Cor. 15:22; 2 Cor. 5:14, 15; 1 Tim. 2:6; 1 Tim. 4:10; Heb. 2:9. The usual explanation, offered by the strict Calvinists, of these texts is this, that terms seemingly universal often have to be limited to a universality within certain bounds by the context, as in Matt. 3:5; that in New Testament times, especially when the gospel was receiving its grand extension from one little nation to all nations, it is reasonable to expect that strong affirmatives would be used as to its extent, which yet should be strained to mean nothing more than this, that persons of every nation in the world were given to Christ. Hence, “the world,” “all the world,” should be taken to mean no more than people of every nation in the world, without distinction. There is a certain amount of justice in these views, and many of these passages, as 1 Cor. 15:22; John 1:29, and 12:32, may be adequately explained by them. The explanation is also greatly strengthened by this fact too little pressed by Calvinists, that ultimately, the vast majority of the whole mass of humanity, including all generations, will be actually redeemed by Christ. There is to be a time, blessed be God, when literally all the then world will be saved by Christ, when the world will be finally, completely, and wholly lifted by Christ out of the gulf, and sink no more. So that there is a sense, most legitimate, in which Christ is the prospective Savior of the world.
    But there are others of these passages, to which I think, the candid mind will admit, this sort of explanation is inapplicable. In John 3:16, make “the world” which Christ loved, to mean “the elect world,” and we reach the absurdity that some of the elect may not believe, and perish. In 2 Cor. 5:15, if we make the all for whom Christ died, mean only the 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 1 John 2:2, 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 propitiation 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 propitiation for them who, having already believed, now sincerely turn to him from recent sins." (http://www.bible-centre.net/theology/books/dabney/st/dab561.html)
     
  11. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Perhaps you could begin by telling me where I said you misquoted him.
     
  12. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    What then is this you said?

    " Icthus misrepresented Dabney's position , by citing a conditional as if it were an actual. That is unethical argumentation, to make someone appear as if they believe something they don't."

    There is nothing conditional about what Dabney says, if you cared to read the passage yourself.
     
  13. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    I said you misrepresented him, which is why I used the word "misrepresent" rather than "misquote." Your quote was fine. But in it, you made Dabney appear as if he rejected Limited Atonement, when he fact he does not reject limited atonement.

    His statement was a conditional ... If we make it mean something, then something ... He rejects that conditional understanding. Whether he is right or wrong, is irrelevant. You cited him perfectly ... probably cut and paste. But in so doing, you made it appear that Dabney does not believe in Limited Atonement on the basis of that quote. Yet clearly, Dabney does believe in what Calvinists call Limited Atonement, and his interpretation of those verses is completely consistent with limited atonement.
     
  14. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't know what is wrong with you. If you read my OP on 2 Corinthians 5:14-15, you will see that I gave Dabney's remarks on this passage, where he says that it does NOT teach Limited Atonement, and then I said, "Clearly another passage that teaches that the Atonement of Jesus Christ is "Universal", for "everyone without exception", and not just for the "elect". This much is also admitted by Dr Dabney." This is NOT saying that Dabney does not believe in Limited Atonement, but I qouted him on this passage.

    You ahve got it all wrong, and instead of apologising, you dig yourself deepet into a pit, but assuming that I misrepresented anything.
     
  15. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    You just did it again. You said that Dabney says this passage does not teach limited atonement. Yet that is not what he said, that I know of. What he essentially said was that sort of application of a restricted meaning of "all" will not work here and the "candid" can see that it teaches a universal effect of the atonement. He did not say that this passage does not teach limited atonement. You have misdefined limited atonement. What he said is what limited atonement affirms.

    Icthus, learn what you are talking about and stop this nonsense. Here it is again: Limited atonement teaches that redemption is applied only to the elect. Limited atonement teaches that Christ's death does have benefits for the non-elect; it simply doesn't save them. There are only so many ways to say that but I keep hoping one of them will make sense to you. Let's move on now.
     
  16. Wes Outwest

    Wes Outwest
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2004
    Messages:
    3,400
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pastor Larry,
    Please provide a concise definition of "the elect". Exactly what does the term include, and what does it exclude.
     
  17. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    All we need to do is let the Bible define it. God defines the elect as those whom He chose to salvation from the beginning of the world (Eph 1:4; 2 Thess 2:13). If you have further questions about that, discuss it in another thread. This thread is about another topic.
     
  18. russell55

    russell55
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2002
    Messages:
    2,424
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dabney wrote in a time when hypercalvinism was a much larger problem in the church than it is now. (As did Spurgeon, BTW.) His argument here is primarily against the hypercalvinists, who had the idea (among other ones) that there were no benefits whatsoever in the atonement for the unelect, and that there was no universal call of the gospel, etc.

    There are a few hypercalvinistic groups now, but unlike it was in Dabney's day, they are fringe groups. You will probably go your whole life and never meet a true hypercalvinist.

    You will, however, meet a lot of calvinists.
     
  19. TexasSky

    TexasSky
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Strictly from proper use of the english language perspective, Pastor Larry is correct in his interpretation of Dabney's words. The use of "seems" is vitally important to the quote. In fact, I studied journalism for awhile, and one of our most basic lessons was about this very word. We were taught, "never write, "this seems to," or "he seemed," because the word seem, when used properly, indicates that what something appears to be on the surface is not what it really is.
     
  20. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is not only the word "seems" ... it is his whole conclusion where he plainly states he believes in the traditional Calvinistic view of limited atonement.
     

Share This Page

Loading...