Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Calvinism/Arminianism Debate' started by Yeshua1, Feb 14, 2014.
your biggest objection is?
The name......it imply s that the death of Christ was of limited value.Try DEFINITE ATONEMENT or PARTICULAR REDEMPTION.
I prefer second term myself, but would you see that main problems some have with the concept itself is that they see God playing favorites, respecting persons, not fair, and they always take all to mean always same every time used in bible?
The biggest objection concerns the reprobate. The punishment for not accepting an atonement never made for them is asinine and devoid of justice, righteousness and simple logic. So to summarize, I reject it on the basis of it contradicting Gods nature and Scripture.
Example. A judge tells you that unless you accept the plea deal from the prosecutor you will be put to death. The prosecutor declares in court he never made a plea deal, nor intends to. The judge turns to you and pleeds for you to take it or his hands are tied...you will be executed. You counter exactly what the prosecutor said, but to no avail, you are executed.
In man's flawed justice system this is evil...yet we are supposed to buy this on a much grander and perfect scale? OK.
I don’t consider the reprobate to be an issue, regardless of one’s view of limited atonement, as the World is “condemned already.” It would be different if we were born into salvation and God elected from the saved a group to condemn. But Scripture presents God saving men already fallen and at odds with God. Condemnation is not, therefore, the issue since it is the common natural state of man. I think it would be more an issue of God’s mercy - does God have the right to offer grace to some, but not all, and still remain a just God? Of course He does, and it would not alter the justness of His character one bit. Whether or not this is what He does is debated, but approaching the topic from the other angle (the reprobate) does not make a logical argument.
An alternate example: You and two of your friends are guilty of a crime, which all three of you committed. The judge executes your two friends but has mercy on you.
I reject Limited Atonement because it contradicts much scripture;
1 Jhn2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
This scripture refutes those that say Jesus only died for the elect.
Luk 19:10 For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.
This verse would include all men, for all men are lost in sin.
Heb 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
Pretty hard to argue with this scripture, it says Jesus died for "every" man.
Jhn 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
John the Baptist said Jesus would take away the sin of the "world", he set no limit on Christ's atonement at all.
1 Tim 4:10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.
1 Timothy 4:10 is important because it shows Jesus died for and is the Saviour of all men, not just those who believe, but those who believe not as well.
These are just a few of many scriptures that say Jesus died for all men. You have to ignore a lot of scripture to believe Limited Atonement.
All deserve Hell, God in his mercy chooses to have His grace and mercy extend upon some of them...
If we say not right or fair, we shoudl all just go to hell then....
The problem with your view is you stated those that committed the crime are guilty
..yet you start off by saying they were condemned already prior to doing anything. Those are contradictory.
God himself chose to reckon/consider ALL after Adam to have partaken of His fall, so we have been judged and found guilty as sinners by God right now, as spiritual dead persons!
"God so Loved the World" -- yes really!
But... It doesn't say "God loved the world so much..." The Greek says:
οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον
The first word there--οὕτως--is the word that most English translations translate as "so." In the King's English of 1611 "so" was better understood as "thus."
So, this passage isn't saying that God loved the world so much. Rather, the passage says, quite literally, "this is how God loved the world."
that put a different spin on things regarding this topic, eh?
Not at all. Whether so love or in this way, it doesn't speak to the scope of the atonement. Whether I say I so love my kids I would give my life for them or I love my kids in this way, I would give my life for them...I'm saying the exact same thing,
Hey brother Arch!! Good to see ya.
This is true, but it doesn't change the fact that in this manner God displayed His love - for the world. This is specific to all mankind who is separated from God because God gives the reason His love is displayed in such a fashion- that whovever believes will not perish. Thus as we note, this maintains that man is already perishing (condemned) without this divine intervention of sending His Son. As such what we have in this verse is that it shows the condition of the world currently and continuing but also God's cure for this condition and it's prerequisite - IF they will believe.
Therefore in just this verse alone we have: the giving of His Son was for all mankind because all are under condemnation (though not yet under the final judgment) and this reveals/displays His love toward us. Additionally eternal life (a relationship with God and Christ - John 17:3) is given to those who will believe (trust God not only what He said but that He has done just what He said).
Just an illustration but I don't get your point.
Its a decent analogy.
But to accurately represent what we believe it needs to be tweaked a bit.
The plea deal is sufficient to pardon every criminal who ever lived in this world and a billion worlds like it.
And every single criminal who wants to be pardoned can be included in the plea deal.
The plea deal makes that clear.
But the criminal is going to have to relinquish his control over his life to the prosecutor.
The judge already knows (this is not his first rodeo, as it were) that this particular criminal is not going to accept the terms of the plea deal but, because it is the judge's nature, he extends the invitation to the criminal nonetheless.
Rick....I like that better.:thumbsup:
Never mind, I think I see what you mean. That's what I get from reading these posts in the car rider line.
I think that we are, before we are saved, under condemnation (on an equal footing with those who will not believe).
Your analogy doesn't work because the criminal is made unable to relinquish his control over his life until enabled to do so, something the judge isn't willing to do...yet pleads for him to do. Actually your analogy makes God out to be much worse.
If Paul was teaching that all men sinned at one single point of time "in Adam" in Romans 5:12, then Paul could not say that Jacob and Esau had done no evil in their mother's womb.
Rom 9:11 (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; )
So you have folks claiming that Paul is making the incredible claim that all persons who ever existed (whether conceived or not) were present in Adam's loins and participated with him when he sinned in the garden, yet four chapters later Paul seems to forget this monumental fact and says that Jacob and Esau had done no evil when they were in their mother's womb.
I was born at night, I really was, but it wasn't last night.