Both Camps Limit The...

Seems to me that a simple "believe it AS written", unless instructed otherwise, is the prudent path to follow.

If you find something that - to you - is contradictory,accept the fact that "His thoughts & ways are higher than yours", and rationally assume that there is something that you haven't grasped yet.

Kinda foolish to adamantly proclaim a belief to be set in stone, when another verse(s) can be cited to "prove " just the opposite.

It'll all make sense one day, so be cool with that which seems argueable now.

 

You are correct. I have misspoken and must apologize. Universalism is not the only "logical" end to unlimited atonement. Open Theism is also an option. I am certain there are others, which you probably know more about than me.

Thank you for the discourse.

peace to youraying:

 

No TC, you need to form your theology according to the implication of II Thess 2:10 that Allan has spelled out.

Thanks Allan. I don't know how it could be more clear than what you have presented.

 

That is my point. Your contention establishes this scripture as a lie. If there was NO WAY they could have been saved, and scripture states 'that they might BE saved' someone is wrong. So is God a liar and man true?

You also didn't address the other portion of what I wrote:

You are correct, the gospel call goes out to all indiscriminately. But you assumption that 'only those called of God, responds and are saved' is not and has never been indisputably substantiated from the scriptures.

But 2 Thes does not need to be understood in that light but your 'only those called of God, responds and are saved' needs to be understood in light of the 2 Thes passage, where those who are condemned by unbelief could have been saved.

This is what you keep neglecting to address. They are condemned (or will be) there is no question but scripture is SPECIFIC that since they rejected the truth that could saved them, God seals them in their unbelief and they are condemned.

If they CAN NOT be saved, then why does scripture state that they might BE saved. That is a complete and absolute biblical contradiction to Limited Atonement. They CAN NOT EVER be considered possible canidates for salvation but seemingly God made a mistake with worst of the bunch (followers of the AC) that they rejected the truth that they might be saved. You must deal with this specifically in order to maintain any plausable semblence that Limited is incontravertable, when scripture speaks specifically to the contrary of it.

So I ask for you to please deal with the verse in context. They are damned because they reject the truth that they might be saved. I already have but have not heard anything from you concerning it.

 

Of course He did, but it is only received by faith. It is not imparted BEFORE faith my friend.

And yes, Scripture DOES teach a 'potential', in the very verse we are discussing as a matter of fact.
"they received not...that they might be saved".
Come TCG, I'm sure you know your Greek so what does this state affirmitively therein. That salvation was 'potential' to these who rejected the love of the Truth.

I mean, even the ESV states it thusly:

The Greek establishes it, there is no translation I can find that refutes it. They only way one can maintain a 'Limited' view of Atonement is to dismiss, over look, reject or deny certain scriptures and namely this one imparticular.

 

But the statement from 2 Thessalonians is not a conditional statement (or a statement with potential, as you call it). It's a statement of purpose. A lot of purpose statements are translated (especially in the KJV) with might, but in those cases might is not meant to suggest possibility, but rather purpose.

"…they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved."

It is not saying that the second clause will happen on condition of the first. Rather, the second clause gives you the purpose of the action in the first clause. The purpose of someone receiving the love of the truth is to be saved. But there is no purpose to save those who do not "receive the love of the truth."

 

THIS IS MY POINT!! :laugh:
There is no point saving those who rejected the truth (that can save) but truth serves 2 purposes and NOT JUST ONE. It serves to save AND condemn.

Yet it doesn't matter if it is 'purpose' and you suppose or 'result' as TCGreek holds (of which I agree with him). They both have to do with the same point I am trying to show you.

The Truth could not save them EVEN IF THEY BELEIVED IT!!
If there was no atonement made for them, it CAN NOT be a truth that if they would beleive they might be saved (purpose or result). Remember, this is dealing with those are garrenteed to be damned, so why does rejecting the truth do anything since the truth is not to them nor for them, much have anything to do regarding saving them.

If rejection of the truth is damnation then Logic demands the acceptance of the same truth is justification- Right?
But if there was no atonement made for THOSE WHO REJECTED, it would not matter if they believed the truth because they still COULD NOT BE Saved. So to say that they 'might' be saved becomes a bold lie by God Himself! The Truth can only save those for whom Christ died and He didn't die for them. But also the rejection of said truth can not condemn them since it can not save them.

The Atonement and the Truth (Gospel/Christ) go hand in hand. You can not have one without the other. So if scripture says they rejected the truth that could have saved them IT LOGICALLY STANDS there was an atonement made FOR THEM that the truth might save them and rejection of it might condemn them.

If there was no atonement made on their behalf, then the general call can never bring condemnation upon them anymore than the air they breath. Yet in the verse we read it was their rejection of the truth that could have saved them so God condemns them.

Here is another problem you must straighten out. If there was no atonement made for them then they are totally under condemntion and nothing can finalize it anymore than it already is. Yet again, scripture states God condemns them because they rejected the truth. They were sealed under Condemnation ONLY AFTER they rejected the truth that could save them, and not before. WHy Not??
Because Christ was a propitiation for their sins just as He is for the believers. But it is their rejection of Christ and His work that condemns them. They are considered condemned because they can not atone for their own sins to appease God, since they rejected Christ's atonement, and therefore they must bare full measure and penalty of their guilty verdict. Thus they are etenally damned, and we have eternal life.

He condemns them because they would not believe it and be saved. It can be no plainer than that my friends. The truth can not save if no atonement was made for them, and the rejection of the truth can not condemn anyone for whom Christ did not die. Yet scripture states imfatically, they are condemned for not believing the truth that could save them.

 

But the truth has no saving power unless an atonement has been made on their behalf.

THAT is the truth. Christ is our propitiation because He has made the atonement for us.

Thus rejecting the truth, rejects Christ AND His work and makes them the sole provider of their own salvation. Thus we see at their rejection of the truth God THEN makes them believe a lie (not before) that they all will be damned who did not believe the truth.

I know don't want to sound trite and I appreciate that. But what I am trying to get across is that if the truth can not save them, then it can not condemn them either. But scripture states the truth can save all who believe it and it will condemn all who reject it. Yet in order for the truth to be able to save we have to understand what that truth is that can save them.

Editted in --> Notice that scripture does not state in the passage in question - "because they received not the love of the truth, that [is able to save]." but it states 'that they might be saved.' I believe in the inspiration of the Word and if God wanted to say they could not be saved, He would have said just that. Yet instead God goes to great lengths not only to state the love of the Truth they rejected could have saved them, but also states their condemnation is based on their choice, and that they were not unilaterally condemned until AFTER they chose to reject the truth.

 

I do not dispute Christ died for His sheep, but scripture does not say He did not give His life for others too, or better give His life for ONLY His Sheep.
What is a propitiation?
And if it be for us, yet not us only but the sins of the whole world. Butwhat does John identify as the 'whole world'.. Lets see...here is every time the phrase is used by John:

It is always used to represent the sinful, wicked, rebellious. If you will notice John is not vague in his usage of the phrase 'whole world' so it CAN NOT mean Jews and Gentiles but specifically all who lie in wickedness. So if Christ is our propitiation, and not ours ONLY, but the sins of the whole world then it stands to reason John held Christs death was for more than just us believers.

No one has said anything about Jesus loosing His sheep. It is His sheep that are redeemed by faith. This says absolutly nothing to the point of Christ being the propitiation for the whole world. Scripture states specifically that the propitiation we are given is done so through faith. It is not just placed upon people but given to those who through faith recieve it. So Christ atoning for all in no way means He looses some, since He know all who will be His by faith and they are all received by Him and all others are condemned for rejecting it. It serves it purpose of both redeeming and condemning. It redeems all those He foreknew, and condemns all those He knew afore.

I am not asking you to do so. But you have not dealt with text in context as to explain how this truth they reject condemns them if it can not save them. What I am speaking from is the many plain texts with teach universal atonement but specific redemption.

As I said, Christ dieing for His sheep is no different than saying they will not be His sheep until He dies for them. But it does NOT state He ONLY died for them. That is purely speculation, by ignoring other scriptures with says He is the propitiation for the whole world.

 

Because one must BELIEVE to be saved. Salvation is the personal application of that propitiation.

You weren't saved until YOU believed yet Christ died for your sins. If you are asserting propitiation requires one to be AUTOMATICALLY saved then why weren't you born saved? Because you are required to "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ" to be saved.

Those in hell are not believers. They did not have the personal application of the propitiation applied via believing in Christ as Savior.

 

That is fine but would you address my response so I can understand your approach? Seriously. I would like to see your response to the post.

 

I am not quite sure what you are saying here. Are you affirming #1 or #2 or both or neither and if just #2 please explain. Thanks

I understand #1 if you affirm it and if you don't, well I still understand what you are saying there, just that you reject that.