Limited Atonement... Unanswerable question.

It was said:
"Wouldn't that mean that John 3:16 would have to read something like this:
For God so loved the elect that he sent his son to pay their sin debt that the elect, after being sovereignly regenerated by God without believing, should not perish, but have everlasting life."

Can't remember the name, but there is a very good little booklet called "God so loved the world", in which the point is quite forcefully made that if you take the word "world" to mean every single soul, you end up with VERY strange doctrine in VERY many places. Jesus said he come down from heaven to give life unto the world.... obviously NOT a reference to physical life. But did he give spiritual life to EVERY SOUL? And Jesus prayed, I pray not for them, but for the world? Did Jesus die for everyone but his disciples? Don't reckon that could be true! And there are many more.

G4G

 

To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them.....

Excellent! Brings it right back where it belongs... Universalism, or Soverign Grace.

 

Dear Sir,

I at lesat must acknowledge your consistency in being a universalist... though not your fidelity to scripture. But if you hold that Jesus died for all, and that that death was an ATONEMENT, then the rest must follow in one way or other, though I find your scenario purely inventive.
I had asked, If Jesus died for souls in hell, then by whose merits do you hope to attain heaven? You said, only by Christs, because ALL are saved, and there evidently IS no hell in your view. While it is intenrally consistent, hoever, it could not be more deviant and from scripture, and therefore heretical. In fact, if the moderator finds your post, I reckon he'll boot you for it. I saw him boot someone on another string for this very belief.
You say,
"Are You Going To Be Looking For God In Heaven..Walking and Talking...Look For The Overcomers...God Will Be IN THEM..Thats Why They Were Picked..This Is Their Inheritance.This is Their Glory..."

As I had demonstrated in an earlier post, Rom.9 entirely denies the EXACT proposition you are making..... says it His own were NOT chosen for the sake of ANYTHING they had done..... just says it plain as day. Not to believe it is self-will. And you say that THIS! THIS!!!!!!!!!!! is their GLORY????? Their WORKS their GLORY! I can only call that blashemy. Say God worked it in them, and thus try to abstract it from their own merit, but the fact is that the righteousness by which saints stand accepted before God is an IMPUTED righteousness, and were it any less it would SEND THEM TO HELL with a vengeance. It is a "righteousness WITHOUT the works of the law"... works of obedience to the law... having nothing to do with their own performances, however inspired, but imputed to them wholly for the sake of the Lord Jesus. How else can Christians be said to be "the righteousness of God in Him"? Is your sanctification as righteous as GOD? A little ambitious, don't you think? And yet were it any less than that, your "righteousness" would DAMN YOU. As for me, THIS IS ALL MY RIGHTEOUSNESS.... NOTHING BUT THE BLOOD OF JESUS.

Jesus Thy Blood and Righteousness
My beauty are, my glorious rest
Midst flaming worlds in THESE arrayed
With Joy shall I lift up my head.

G4G

 

It was said,
"Did you even read my response? The question you asked was, "Precisely WHAT is the benefit that these shall receive, if not that which is explicitly NAMED….. eternal salvation, from predestination all the way to glorification?" The answer to that is salvation - those who are justified are saved.
The second question you asked was this: "To WHOM is this benefit applied, if not to those explicitly NAMED in the text, those for whom Christ “gave Himself”?" The answer is to those who believe. (Nowhere did I say that everyone would believe, thank you.) God did give himself for those who would believe. But does this Scripture state that God gave himself ONLY for those who would believe? The answer is a resounding "NO!" Thus, my answer nowhere borders on universalism."
You here, as elsewhere in your post, abstract the BENEFIT of salvation from the WORK of the cross.... proposing that some had the work of the cross done for them who failed of the benefit. And atleast you here give some answer, though perhaps not intentionally, to my first question: If Jesus died for souls in hell, by whose merits do they obtain heaven?" Your answer... ONLY THEIR OWN. And the point that you are avoiding is that YOUR answer is NOT the answer given in the TEXT. The text says that the benefit is salvation, and that those for whom THAT benefit is NECESSARILY given are THOSE FOR WHOM CHRIST DIED. You think to have answered the question merely by supplying a different asnwer than that given in the bible. That is not a sufficient answer. The text says not ONE THING about believing. It says that those for whom Christ gave himself shall get the "all things" in the text.... eternal salvation. You have no liberty to impose your own theological ideas upon the text, and then try to enforce this upon the faith of others. Add not to his words...

You said in your first post,
"Because "us" gets all things - that is, those who have believed"
That is... He that spared not his own son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with, also freely give us all things." Think this through..... If the US is those who have believed, then he only died for THOSE WHO WILL BELIEVE, and you have become a limited atonement advocate.... for the "us" is only in reference to those for whom Christ died.

Lastly on this point is your claim that I misrepresented your beliefs. Here is the part of the post I was responding to that you wondered if I didn't read:
I'll be glad to answer your question. The verse says he gave him up for us all. This in no way, shape, or form, directly or indirectly implies "us all and no one else." Because "us" gets all things - that is, those who have believed, it makes sense in parallel construction, used so often in Greek, that Paul used dying for us. There are several SCriptures that state Christ died for all. We can either say that all doesn't mean all, which requires exegetical dishonesty or ignorance, or we can see that passages like this do not exclude anyone else. I can say "Christ died for you!" and not exclude that he died for me as well."
Here you say he died for all. In this present post you admit that your meaning was that the benefit of THIS DEATH was eternal savlation. Your attempted escape has been to attempt to abstract the death of Christ from any necessary benefit.... He died for some who were not benefited. This unbiblical abstraction was not completely developed yet when I replied.

Will continue on another post, lest this one gets truncated! lol

 

You said:
"Take that up with them. Ask Ken or pinoybaptist or any other one... (You can search from a couple weeks ago and find it.)"
I had denied your claim that "most" Calvinists hold this view.I don't reckon that Pinyobaptist and Ken constitute "most" Calvinists.

You said,
"Indeed, it is not begging the question. How do you show that it is? "
By repeating myself: "Your claim that the verse does not exclude anyone is begging the question. The benefit is for those for whom Christ died. If Christ only died for the elect, then some are excluded. If not, then they are not. But that is what you are trying to prove, and you cannot assume your argument in your attempted proof of it." I don't think you understand the argument being made. You say, for instance, "You must "show that in order to believe that the premises are true we must already agree that the conclusion is true."" It was not I that was assuming any conclusion, it was yourself, as I showed, and show again above. I was compeling you to provide evidence for your conclusion beyond your assumption of its truthfulness.

You said:
"The benefit is for "us" - that is, the church."
We are dealing with a specific text of the bible. This text doesn't say that. It says that the benefit is to those for whom Christ died. No if, ands, or buts. You don't want to face this so you must invent a theological apparition and think to impose it on others as though it were the faith found in the bible.... and thus you say:

"1. The answer the text gives is simple: "The benefit is applied to those who believe, that is, the church..." or directly from the text, "those who are justified are glorified." How does one become justified? By believing! (Acts 13:39)."

Could you please provide me with the place in this passage where it makes this connection? "He that spared not his own son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not, with him, also freely give us all things." Didn't notice the part about believing in there! It makes a concise statement that those for whom Jesus was crucified for will NECESSARILY obtain the "all things" in the context. In utter desperation you turn this on its head, as though justification and glorifiation were not the benefits themselves, but definitions of those to whom the benefit applies! Well then! What are the BENEFITS???! Being justified and glorified ARE the benefits... not definitions of to whom the benefit applies! Yikes! My opinion is that you DON"T LIKE WHAT IT SAYS, and that is not good at all. You ought to bow in your heart to so plain a revelation.

You say,
"Where does this say that the benefit is for all - this merely states that Christ died for all."

Here is the problem. You abstract the BENEFIT from the WORK of Christ. You put contingency between the death of Christ and the benefit to men... BUT THAT IS THE WHOLE ARGUEMENT OF THE TEXT THAT THERE IS NO SUCH CONTINGENCY!!!!!! How shall they NOT obtain salvation, is the claim of Paul about the power of the cross! "He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, HOW SHALL HE NOT with him also freely give us all things?" What part of "HOW SHALL HE NOT" don't you understand? The text denies your EXACT claim, and puts NECESSITY between the work of Christ and the BENEFIT. THATS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE TEXT!
And this was the point I was making in my first question, which NNE has attempted to answer yet, but which you here wholly admit. "If Christ died for souls in hell, then by whose merits do we obtain heaven". Your sentence above tells us... ONLY YOUR OWN.... for the work of Christ didn't obtain the benefit... only their WORKS did.... only those who met the conditions. We are his workmanship, CREATED in Christ Jesus UNTO good works, which God hath forordained that we should walk in them. Notice the order.... not work, then life, but life, then work. When you see a man working you don't say, "Oh, I see.... he worked, and therefore was given life".... we say rather, "He was given life, and therefore works". You are getting the cart before the horse and attempting to affirm that a man's works are the cause of his being chosen... being SAVED. That proposition is denied in the most undeniable terms in Rom. 9 as I have had to point out over and over in this thread. I says in plain English that men are NOT chosen for the sake of what they DO, and reaches this conclusion.... "Therefore it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy". Your belief would have it this way....."Therefore it is not of God that calleth, nor of Christ that meriteth, but of man that sheweth faith." I find this self-willed in the face of so plain a statement of scripture.

G4G

 

Dear Russel,
Really liked this...
"BTW, if you must think of the atonement as a commercial transaction, think of it more like purchasing a family pass to something. The pass works for everyone in the family, no matter how large or small the family is. It is the relationship that counts, not the number of people."

You said,
"Then you don't hold to the doctrine of limited atonement as it is commonly and traditionally held. The atonement is not a purely commercial transaction with so much suffering for one person and so much more for another. We can get a clue about how it works in the foreshadowing example of the Old Covenant atonement. One sacrifice made by the priest on behalf of the people was effective for all of the people, whether the group of Israelites was smaller or larger. What mattered is that they were one of the group the atonement sacrifice was made on behalf of, not exactly how many people there were."

While you might be right about the historicity question, that is not my present understanding. I know that Fuller held to such an atonement, but I don't think Gill or the Puritans did.... but I could be wrong. In fact, I think I remember reading in Owen that he strongly reprobated the idea you present. I know that I strongly disagree with Fuller's idea of an atonement for the non-elect, but I doubt you're advocating his system. An atonement that doesn't ATONE is not an atonement. If the lost have an atonement it is plainly not an atonement at all. It is manifestly impossible for a damned person to have an atonement. But what you are likely saying is NOT that the lost had any such atonement, but that were it God's purpose to apply the merits of Christ to them, then they would be sufficient.
The problem I see with this is that it makes the atonement have this "pool of merit" to be applied as desired, instead of the idea of substitutionary atonement where one is surety for a PERSON and PAYS ALL that is due unto them.
But while I feel this way, I hardly think your view is any problem... maybe I am wrong. Its worth discussing, and I appreciate your comments.

G4G

 

Dear Bro. Glen,
Hi... saw your post...
You said:
"I believe Jesus Christ died for ALL mankind with this stipulation that All will have a resurrection."

This idea, and the way you elaborate upon it, turns the atonement into a purpose of damnation... that an atonement was necessary to DAMN them... Is that a biblical idea of an atonement?

You said,
"That being said the blood that was shed for his children his Elect according to the doctrine of Election taught in the scriptures only applies to HIS resurrected children."
To break this down you are saying that the blood shed for his children only applies to his children. Does this get you out of the above dilemma?

You said:
"If Jesus Christ resurrection was not for the whole Adamic race of mankind... His children to Heaven and immortal glory and those not his to eternal torment then how are they raised?... Was not he raised for the just and unjust?"
Those raised IN CHRIST are saved... therefore if the Christ's atoneing death and ressurection are the basis of ALL mankinds resurrection, then ALL mankind are saved. Those who are rasied to damnation are NOT raised IN CHRIST... right? If they were, how could they fail to be saved?

G4G

 

"If any man be in Christ he is a new creature" is BORN AGAIN... SAVED. How can the Lost be raised in Christ, and NOT be raised incorruptible? To be in Christ is to be SAVED. That is one of the most fundamental teachings in the whole bible. The damned are rasied in CORRUPTION because they are raised in ADAM. There is no atonement necessary for them to be damned! The fact that they were damned already is WHY THEY NEEDED AN ATONEMENT!

G4G

[ August 30, 2002, 05:34 PM: Message edited by: grateful4grace ]

 

Problem here is that you don't make any reply to the scripture that was given in support of these truths. It was this from Romans 9:
10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth
12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

This passage could not more explicitly deny that election is based upon anything the recipients would do, nor therefore can it be based upon any FOREKNOWELDGE of the same. You might as well affirm that MY words affirm your doctrine as Pauls. Were I an apostle, doubtless many would do just that.
And Paul continues:
19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

Here Paul makes all the objections you do... how it is unjust, etc..... AND TREATS IT AS AN ERROR. Whether you understand or appreciate the reasons he submits for his doctrine, it remains clear that he argues against THIS doctrine as an ERROR, and that doctrine is the one you are defending, and defending with the same arguments as Paul's adversaries.

G4G