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

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

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

Limited Atonement, Love and Marriage

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Ian Major, Jun 21, 2004.

Top Posters
  1. Ian Major

    Ian Major New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2002
    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ephesians 5: 25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, 26that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, 27that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. 28So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. 29For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. 30For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. 31"For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." 32This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church. 33Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.

    Questions;
    1. If Christ loved the world and gave Himself for it, just as He did for the Church, am I free to marry more than one wife?
    2. Must God love everyone equally? If I may not marry another woman, am I free to love her as I do my wife?

    The Calvinist has no problem with monogamy - how about you Arminian brethren/sisters?

    In Him

    Ian
     
    #1 Ian Major, Jun 21, 2004
  2. dttw_aic

    dttw_aic New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2003
    Messages:
    49
    Likes Received:
    0
    If you want to get this deep into the analogy, are we then allowed to choose a wife without their consent?

    But seriously,the verse says that Christ died for the church. It doesn't say that he didn't die for those not of the church. Just because he may have died for others and loved others doesn't mean that God must take them as his bride as well, so no you are not free to take another wife.

    Also, the love that is being talked about here is not an intimate love, but a sacrificial love. In this sence, yes we can, and should, love others in this way.

    As for how arminians feel about monogamy, I cannot say. As for me, who is neither calvinist nor arminian, I have no problem with it.
     
    #2 dttw_aic, Jun 22, 2004
  3. Eric B

    Eric B Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,838
    Likes Received:
    5
    The Bride is the body of believers, not individuals in the Body as opposed to others not in the Body. If you want to carry the analogy that way, Christ is married to one wife, the Church; not other "bodies" of religion.(prophetically represented as "women")
     
    #3 Eric B, Jun 23, 2004
  4. Ian Major

    Ian Major New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2002
    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    0
    dttw_aic siad
    But seriously,the verse says that Christ died for the church. It doesn't say that he didn't die for those not of the church. Just because he may have died for others and loved others doesn't mean that God must take them as his bride as well, so no you are not free to take another wife.

    OK. But I am free to love other women just as I do my wife?

    Also, the love that is being talked about here is not an intimate love, but a sacrificial love. In this sence, yes we can, and should, love others in this way.

    It's both. The sacrificial aspect comes because of the intimate nature of His love. Even the analogy shows us this: we are to love our wives, not just sacrificially but with all the passion that motivates such sacrifice. It would be pretty impersonal otherwise.

    Maybe that's one of the problems of Arminianism, that it thinks God did not love anyone personally, just as a group. Like me saying, 'I love you because you are an American. I don't know your personally and my choice to have you as a friend (election) is not based on my love of you personally, but of the group you belong to.'

    Calvinism's view is that God loved each saint personally, chose them to be saved and to send His Son to bear THEIR sins away. All personal. Each one of these loved ones are then viewed as a group, the Church, so that it is said Christ loved the Church and gave Himself for her.

    In Him

    Ian
     
    #4 Ian Major, Jun 23, 2004
  5. dttw_aic

    dttw_aic New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2003
    Messages:
    49
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ian Major said:

    It's both. The sacrificial aspect comes because of the intimate nature of His love. Even the analogy shows us this: we are to love our wives, not just sacrificially but with all the passion that motivates such sacrifice. It would be pretty impersonal otherwise.

    I have no problem with this statement. You must remember, however, we are told here to love our wife as Christ loved the church. We are not told to love others as he loved the church, nor are we told that we shouldn't. This issue is simply not addressed by this scripture.

    This scripture deals strictly with two relationships, our relationship with our bride, and Christ's relationship with his bride. There is no way to conclude anything about other relationships through this scripture.

    Ian Major said:

    Maybe that's one of the problems of Arminianism,...

    I would like to make it clear that I am not an arminian. I dissagree with their theology as much as I do with calvinism.

    Ian Major said:

    ...that it thinks God did not love anyone personally, just as a group. Like me saying, 'I love you because you are an American. I don't know your personally and my choice to have you as a friend (election) is not based on my love of you personally, but of the group you belong to.'

    This is not a view that I hold. God loves all individuals. He works in their lives to bring them to salvation. Since God loves the individual and because he wants a voluntary relationship with that individual, he allows them to choose wheather or not to seek him. Since God gives us this ability, many choose not to follow Christ. If you have a problem with this freedom to choose, read my posts on the thread "the sum and substance of all theology". If you have any further light to shed on what is being discussed there, I would like you to share it with us. After all, isn't the purpose of Christian debate to come to a better understanding of Christ through a better understanding of the scripture?
     
    #5 dttw_aic, Jun 26, 2004
  6. Ian Major

    Ian Major New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2002
    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    0
    dttw_aic said
    I have no problem with this statement. You must remember, however, we are told here to love our wife as Christ loved the church. We are not told to love others as he loved the church, nor are we told that we shouldn't. This issue is simply not addressed by this scripture.

    OK, I see how you view this. It just seems strange to me to limit it so. The picture here of Christ's love for the church is similar to that of the sheep and the Shepherd, John 10: 11"I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep. ... 14I am the good shepherd; and I know My sheep, and am known by My own. 15As the Father knows Me, even so I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep. 16And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd.... 26But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. 27My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. 28And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. 29My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father's hand. 30I and My Father are one."

    Does Christ really love the Whore as He does the Church? Does He really lay down His life for the goats and wolves as well as for the sheep?

    In Him

    Ian
     
    #6 Ian Major, Jun 27, 2004
  7. dttw_aic

    dttw_aic New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2003
    Messages:
    49
    Likes Received:
    0
    Romans 5:18 "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto the justification of life."

    Yes, Jesus did lay down his life for the goats and wolves. As we can see here, the free gift was given to all men. This doesn't mean that all men will be saved, but that the gift is upon them. The funny thing about gifts, as apposed to judgments, is that they don't do anything for you unless you accept them.

    This is the entire point behind salvation. Christ died for all men, and because of this the gift of salvation is upon all men. The gift, however, is only active in those who accept it. Many will try to say that this means that it was man that brought about his salvation, but can a man bost about earning something that was given to him freely? He cannot.
     
    #7 dttw_aic, Jun 30, 2004
  8. Ian Major

    Ian Major New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2002
    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    0
    dttw_aic said
    Yes, Jesus did lay down his life for the goats and wolves. As we can see here, the free gift was given to all men. This doesn't mean that all men will be saved, but that the gift is upon them. The funny thing about gifts, as apposed to judgments, is that they don't do anything for you unless you accept them.

    1. I'm glad you follow through the logic of your argument, having Christ give Himself for the wolves, goats and sheep without distinction. It certainly clarifies just what one holds if they accept universal atonement.

    2. Rom.5:18 doesn't say Christ died for everyone. It says the gift came to all men, resulting in justification to life. I can say that this means either (1) the 'all men' are the 'we', the 'us' of the rest of the chapter, ie, the believers; or (2) that this speaks of the offer made to everyone in the gospel, not that Christ died for everyone. Either way, His specific atonement for his sheep is sustained. I go for the former, as the verse seems to make no separation between the gift coming and the justification; it has the 'all' being justified by the gift.

    You have to separate the gift from the accompanying result - the justification of the 'all'. As I've shown, even if that is possible, it does not prove that Christ died for everyone.


    This is the entire point behind salvation. Christ died for all men, and because of this the gift of salvation is upon all men. The gift, however, is only active in those who accept it. Many will try to say that this means that it was man that brought about his salvation, but can a man bost about earning something that was given to him freely? He cannot.

    He could of course boast that it was his free-will acceptance of that gift that made him differ from his neighbour who ended in hell. Something more noble about his spirit, perhaps?

    But let take the issue a bit further. If Christ died for Judas just as He did for Peter, you have to say He bore Judas' sins in His own body on the tree. That Judas' sins were imputed to Him. What then will Judas be punished for? Or will God punish Judas for the same sins He punished Christ for?

    In Him

    Ian
     
    #8 Ian Major, Jun 30, 2004
  9. npetreley

    npetreley New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    2
    Nonsense. Of course he can. If a gift involves an action on the part of the receiver, then there MUST be something different about one person than another that motivates one person to accept the gift, and the other to reject it. No matter how you account for this difference, if it involves action on the part of the receiver, it gives the receiver a right to boast.

    Suppose a man walks up to you and offers you $100 and you accept it, and the same man walks up to me and offers me $100 and I reject it. You have every reason to say there must be something wrong with me if I would reject a generous offer of $100 for free, no strings attached, and you would have just as much right to credit yourself for being sensible/smart/whatever enough to see the benefit in accepting the gift and taking the "correct" action to receive it.

    IMO, this is the entire point behind Arminianism. It's an attempt to say, "Okay, I admit there's no way I could earn salvation by good works or my own atonement for my sins, but at least I was smart/clever/reasonable/whatever enough to accept salvation when it was offered to me." Arminianism, IMO, is all about boasting.

    Calvinism, on the other hand, is all about realizing that we have absolutely NOTHING whatsoever to do with our salvation. We can take no credit for deserving it, earning it, atoning for our sins, we cannot find anything within ourselves that would make one of us more desirable than another to be elected by God, we cannot claim credit for having the sense/whatever to "accept" it. It has nothing to do with our actions, desires, or will - it is based ENTIRELY on God's mercy on whomever He chooses. Boasting is totally excluded.
     
    #9 npetreley, Jun 30, 2004
  10. dttw_aic

    dttw_aic New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2003
    Messages:
    49
    Likes Received:
    0
    Once again I must say it that I am not an arminian. Get that Idea out of your heads. I believe in the depravity of man, I believe in election based on predestined characteristics (namely a seeking after of God), I believe in unlimited atonement which is only effective for the elect, I believe that once grace is offered to a man he cannot resist it, and I believe that a man cannot become unjustified once he has been justified.

    As to this entire argument, it comes down to one thing, and as to that one thing I will make this simple statement, and since this discussion is not being productive in coming to a better understanding of God, I will not post anything else in this thread.

    I know that I was dead in sin. I know that Christ died for me even as a sinner. I know that I had a choice as to wheather or not to accept his invitation to justification. I chose to accept. I know that I cannot bost in this and I know that God and God alone is responsible for my justification. I hope and pray that you will come to this understanding, but until you can get to a point where your hangups are founded by scripture and not by the faulty logic of man, this cannot be.

    May God bless you and the Holy Spirit guide you.
     
    #10 dttw_aic, Jun 30, 2004
  11. Ian Major

    Ian Major New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2002
    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    0
    Since dttw_aic is quitting this thread, I am using my question which he left unanswered to open another thread.

    Question was, 'If Christ died for Judas just as He did for Peter, you have to say He bore Judas' sins in His own body on the tree. That Judas' sins were imputed to Him. What then will Judas be punished for? Or will God punish Judas for the same sins He punished Christ for?'

    Thread will be, If Christ died for Judas just as He did for Peter

    In Him

    Ian
     
    #11 Ian Major, Jul 1, 2004
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Loading...