Limited Atonement... Unanswerable question.

I offer it to you in the new post.

You have a faulty view of Scripture. We must take the Bible as a whole. If you cannot agree with that, then this argument will not get anywhere. This is evident to your blantant disregard to other Scriptures that were given you at the very beginning.

The rest of your statements generally hang on your inability to accept other passages of Scripture to aid in the interpretation (see your response about the Jeremiah allusion). I will ignore the laughable attempt at explaining logic in your previous post - mainly, because I don't have the time nor the desire to explain to you various lessons in argumentation and debate. If you wish to do more reading on that, I would commend you for that.

I would encourage you to read through the entire Bible, taking the Romans 9 tinted glasses off and leaving the a priori assumptions at the door, then returning to read Romans 9 again. Once you get a grasp on how God's election worked in the Old Testament, you will be able to understand where I am coming from in regards to the argument that Paul makes.

Before you write about how God just hasn't opened my eyes yet or that my heart is hardened, I would suggest that you examine yourself first to see if your heart is hard as well. My heart was hardened for many, many years as a Calvinist, and I refused to see "the other side." My will began to melt as I continued to read the Bible as a whole, seeing that God is both sovereign and man has the will to choose or reject him. Romans 9-11 are some of the most majestic chapters in the Bible, as Paul takes great pains to explain why Gentile people (of which I am one) is now allowed to partake in the blessings of the gospel. The OT continually points to that.

I would also encourage you to "flow" the argument, if you know what that means. That will help you to understand how our argument got off track. You are bound to see several "holes" on your paper - those are the points that you need to make to strengthen your argument.

Believe it or not, but I am always open to good arguments, and will be happy to admit when I am wrong. However, your argument was poorly constructed, and you put all your eggs in a very small basket. You held on to it ferociously, in spite of the evidence against it. In fact, all other evidence you interpreted wearing the Romans 9 glasses, instead of stepping back and considering how they could be taken together.

I would, in conclusion, ask that we take this up in the Romans 9 thread for this reason. Our argument is from a much larger perspective than the few verses you posted. It hinges on the result of Paul's entire argument. We're not discussing nit-picking stuff, but large theoretical frameworks that we use to create our hermeneutical framework.

SEC

 

Definition of Atonement.

Atonement: Satisfaction for sin by which pardon is obtained.

Atonement is not a retribution or payment for a debt. Repentance and Faith in the Lamb of God symbolized through all Old Testament and in the New Testament represented by Jesus Christ; had always been the requirements for salvation. In the Old Testament you see proselytes to whom the atonement was efficient. There has always been the opportunity for all those who want to come and drink of the waters freely. Those who are now in hell had their opportunity in their time, it doesn't demerit the sacrifice of Christ in any sense, Christ died for ALL, for the salvation of many (the believers) and the condemnation of other (the unbelievers).

"If sinners do not accept it (Atonement), in no view can the atonement be useless, as the great compassion of God, in providing an atonement and offering them mercy, will forever exalt His character, in the estimation of holy beings, greatly strengthen His government, and therefore benefit the whole universe." Charles Finney

 

The subject of Charles Finney has already been brought up. Charles Finney was a heretic by any orthodox Christian standards - Calvinistic or otherwise.

Look at: www.gty.org/~phil/articles/finney.htm

Christian regards,

Ken
A Spurgeonite

[ September 03, 2002, 01:12 PM: Message edited by: Ken Hamilton ]

 

Ken:

I don't agree in all what Finney believed, come on deal with the Atonement subject.

By the way Finney was Spurgeon's worst nightmare.

God used Finney to bring revival while most "Calvinistic" baptist churches were dying in the 19th century.

I stick to Finney in the Atonement doctrine. He defeated all calvinistics in his time on that, by far.

[ September 03, 2002, 03:13 PM: Message edited by: TheRadicalOne ]

 

Huh???? Have you really looked into this statement?

 

Two problems there.

#1 - the idea that you can "make All Men" mean whatever suits your doctrinal preference "best". (Redefine terms in scripture as it suits your doctrinal preference).

#2. The Calvinist position in 1John 2:2 is that "The Whole World is Saved". Once "Whole World" is sufficiently redefined down to "The FEW of Matt 7 among the Gentiles - the elect Gentiles". They are only surprised "That the Bible does not actually come out and say - Thuse the WHole World is Saved in addition to the Jewish Whole World".

Notice that in Romans 5 "all men are Justified" is not what the text says. And there in is the mechanism for letting the ALL stay as it is with the "EVEN SO" connecting the ALL of those who are DEAD in Adam with the ALL of those who have JUSTIFICATION OF LIFE "resulted".

In Christ,

Bob

[ September 04, 2002, 07:24 AM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

How does "justification resulted to all men" mean anything different than "all men were justified"?

What about 1 Corinthians 15 where is says "For as in Adam all died, even so in Christ shall all be made alive"? Does the second "all" there mean every person in the world?

 

I would maintain that it is important to examine the entire body of Scripture to help understand a verse. It keeps it from being interpreted out of context.

If that couples me with JW's, so be it. I would hope that all Christians would be willing to do the same.

 

The question is perplexing since it "seems to presuppose" the Mormon doctrine of accepting salvation in another life rather than in this one.
The idea that souls in hell would be allowed to accpet salvation based on -- what? - their works in hell?

I guess one would have to "be" a Mormon to see it as a dilemma for the Arminian POV.

(It is interesting that even the book of Mormon condemns the teaching of waiting until after death to accept salvation.)

======================================
Or maybe the question is to address the idea that there were souls in hell at the time of the death of Christ - so in dying for the sins of the "whole World" He "should" have at least excluded them from the "Whole World". Is that it?

=========================
Or is the question "really" to address OT saints and when they receive salvation. The subject of "One Gospel" that is effective in the OT (taking Enoch and Elijah to heaven for example) as well as in the NT - then again, the question is more related to how one vs OT vs NT Gospels as being Two or One - rather than the question of Arminian vs Calvinism.

Pick one of the options above or add one that more accurately identifies the point you would like to have addressed.

In Christ,
Bob

[ September 04, 2002, 12:31 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

Atonement means SATISFACTION FOR SIN BY WHICH PARDON IS OBTAINED. It is NOT a payment for a debt not a retribution. Did Christ payed the exact amount of punishment that the amount of sinners he died for deserved? The atonement was an act of PUBLIC JUSTICE and Not RETRIBUTIVE JUSTICE.

Your understanding of what Atonement is the real problem. As the declaration of Spurgeon when he wrote in his defense of Calvinism, that he didn't believe Christ died for those that were already in hell, demostrates his ignorance of the meaning of the Atonement. Christ's sacrifice was symbolized through all sacrifices of the Old Testament since the days of Adam and Eve before there was any person in hell.

Those who offered the sacrifice of a Lamb were trusting in the future Atonement of Christ for their salvation, which was announced by God himself through the prophets.

Make a research for yourself.

 

</font>[/QUOTE]The Bible does not really discuss "those in Hell already" in relation to salvation (for the whole point is moot), so that is why it has been hard for people to deal directly with this proposition. I think many will agree that people before Christ were saved by faith, just like now, and Christ's death reached back and redeemed them (or their faith "looked forward"). Likewise those who did not have faith (Romans 9:31-33) were not justified, and not covered by the blood when it was shed. Keep in mind we are dealing with a God not bound by time who acts in time, so this is the reason "unanswerable questions" may arise. We must not overspeculate on the ramifications of these things and try to prove our doctrine on these questions, because that is itself a desperate evasive tactic when there should be enough clear scripture (divided rightly, according to context and the whole of scriptural revelation) to support one's position without having to resort to such tactics. (The Pharisees used this same method on Jesus).

Simple. If Christ did die for all men, then he also died for "us all" (believers) as well. The whole group (of all humanity) includes the subset (of believers). So I see no problem in saying that those who get "all things" are "us all", meaning believers only.

[ September 04, 2002, 04:12 PM: Message edited by: Eric B ]

 

TheRadicalOne,

So you don't like Finney . . . Your mentors have taught you this because they know that Finney was far closer to the truth than your Five Pointer, Mr. Camping who declares to you Calvinists and the rest of us that 'all Christians should leave their churches.' Mr. Camping's "Allegorical Method" of interpretation has finally gotten him a seat among the apostates.

Many Calvinists dislike Evangelist Finney because he was clearly more Arminian in his views than they can deal with from their vantage point.

 

Ray, I like Finney.

You simply didn't follow what I've written.

 

TheRadicalOne,

Sorry my mistake; the first one this year. My wife wouldn't agree with this.