God loves humanity in general. (Anyone who says otherwise is slandering the goodness and kindness of God.) Yet many die unforgiven. There are some who limit atonement, against the clear teaching of scripture, these slander God and His redemptive work.
Not a proponent of limiting God's sovereignty by saying that he can't allow true free will and still be able to accomplish his purposes.
There are some who limit atonement, against the clear teaching of scripture, these slander God and His redemptive work.
There is no teaching of unlimited atonement, clear or otherwise in scripture.
You have three options with regard to the atonement:
1.) Absolute Unlimited Atonement: Christ's work atoned for every sin ever. Everybody's sins are forgiven, therefore you are logically forced into universalism. Everybody is going to heaven. Satan and the fallen angels are going to heaven too, because, heck, it would be limiting atonement to not forgive their sins too.
Hopefully, you see the absurdity of this...
Therefore, you must limit atonement in one of the following two ways:
2.) Atonement limited in scope, but unlimited in effectiveness. In this view, which is the L in the Calvinist TULIP, Christ's redeeming work on the cross atoned completely for every sin of the elect, but not for every sin of the reprobate. Therefore, all the atoning work is done by Christ for the elect. This (as we will see) is the only option that accomplishes salvation or even makes is possible for the elect.
3.) Atonement limited in effectiveness but universal in scope. This is the Arminian "Unlimited Atonement." According to this view, Jesus loved everybody in the world and died for the sins of everybody in the world. But the Arminian sees the pitfall of universalism and tries to avoid it by saying that Jesus accomplished most of salvation for those who are saved, but there is something the believer must do in order to finish the job. If this view is true, then man must merit his own salvation. God requires absolute perfection though, so sinful man who is dead (not sick, dead) in his transgressions has no hope of salvation and we're all going to hell.
Just imagine what someone who calls his brother a damnable heretic will be guilty of...
Like a typical American "fundamentalist," you have one verse to hang onto. That one verse will not be interpreted by the rest of scripture (like say, Proverbs), but by your autonomy.
To be more sensitive to your scruples, though I will revise my statement:
I recommend that you be more reserved with your tongue, fathead.
Christ's work on the cross was not limited to benefit a few but to be available for all. This is decisively stated in 1 John 2:2, "He Himself is the propitiation (satisfaction) for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world". This is certainly not the same as "dying for those foreordained to be saved". These are other verses. "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life" John 3:16; there are many other "whosoever" in Scripture. Plainly this means anyone, not just the elect. "Who gave Himself a ransom for all" 1 Timothy 2:6; the "all" is defined by "all men" for whom we are to pray (vs. 1), the "all men" that He desires to be saved. God is "the Savior of all men, especially of them that believe" 1 Timothy 4:10; God's mercy is available to all Romans 11:32. Jesus tasted death for every man Hebrews 2:9. "The grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men" Titus 2:11. "Not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance" 2 Peter 3:9. "Who will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" 1 Timothy 2:4. "Whosoever will, let him take of the water of life freely" Revelation 22:17. "Come unto Me all ye that labor and are heavy laden and I will give you rest" Matthew 11:28. "Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved" Romans 10:13. "The grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men" Titus 2:4 Him that cometh unto Me, I will in no wise cast out" John 6:37. "If I be lifted up, I will draw all men unto Me" John 12:32. "God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself" 2 Corinthians 5:19. If the world means only the elect, then Christ had no interest in even attempting to reconcile other lost sinners unto Himself. Provision for all cannot become effective until it is appropriated by faith. A pardon must be received to be valid. A deposit must be drawn upon to be useful. A rope must be grasped to escape. The blood of the Passover Lamb had to be applied to the door posts of the Israelites to be efficacious Exodus 12:7-13. In summation, a universal and bonafide offer of salvation cannot be preached unless there is a universal provision. If salvation is offered to all men then Christ's death for all is the ground for that offer. Generations of evangelists and missionaries have proclaimed an offer to one and all. No hearer was called to consider first whether he might be among the elect.
Well, if I wanted to produce such an arbitrary, piece-meal proof that Calvinism is "damnable heresy," I couldn't have done better.
You are ignoring all of the scriptural passages that teach God's complete sovereignty over election.
First: The "world"
In assuming that "the world" or even the "whole world" or "every man" means every specific individual, you are neglecting the historical/grammatical exegesis of scripture. The emphasis of Jesus dying for the sins of the world is an attempt to correct the Israel-centeredness of the new testament's audience. Before, the gentiles were cut off from the promise. Now, they are heirs just as much as the physical descendants of Abraham. You have still yet to show how you could possibly avoid universalism. (Which is easily refuted by scripture.) If Jesus atoned fully for every individual human being's sins ever, it would be unjust for God to cast the goats into hell.
Proof texts:
Okay "Mr. Scripture" as you claim to be, I challenge you to support the following assertions you've made with scripture:
-"Not a proponent of limiting God's sovereignty by saying that he can't allow true free will and still be able to accomplish his purposes."
What do you mean by "true free will" here? Are we talking tabula rasa and therefore Pelagianism? Is man's will absolutely free from the control of God? If it is, you will have to rip out the parts of the Bible that refer to Pharaoh, Saul, Judas, and Peter's denial of Jesus (to name but a few of the most blatant examples.)
-If the world means only the elect, then Christ had no interest in even attempting to reconcile other lost sinners unto Himself.
I thought logic was forbidden in our discussion. Thankfully, your conditional statement isn't valid, so you have no need to worry about violating your own standard. Christ had an interest in attempting to reconcile sinners to himself whom he knew wouldn't repent--that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Also, it's rather bold and presumptuous to claim that you know what Christ's interests couldn't be. Produce some scripture to back that up, if you would please.
-"Provision for all cannot become effective until it is appropriated by faith. (scripture please?????) A pardon must be received to be valid. A deposit must be drawn upon to be useful. A rope must be grasped to escape. The blood of the Passover Lamb had to be applied to the door posts of the Israelites to be efficacious Exodus 12:7-13."
It is not of him that will or of him that runs, but of God who shows mercy. I recommend that you read Romans 9 a few times. Memorize it. God is the potter and we are the clay.
Also, you keep forgetting that Adamic man is dead in his transgressions. Not sick, dead. A dead man can't grab for a life line in the water. He's in Davey Jones' locker with his lungs full of water being nibbled on by bottom dwellers. He can't appropriate anything unless the Holy Spririt quickens new life. Then, once regenerate (and only after becoming regenerate) he may appropriate the promise by faith. In order to receive forgiveness through faith, he must already be reborn. He must have had his will (which was in absolute bondage to sin) changed by nothing less than a miraculous act of God before he can receive anything.
"No hearer was called to consider first whether he might be among the elect."
And the straw mand is down! He's beating the stuffing out of that straw man with all his might! I never claimed that a hearer of the gospel was required to consider first whether he is one of the elect. Calvin never claimed it either. Have you ever read any Calvin? (Like, say, a paragraph?) You might want to do so before dismissing him as anathema... A hearer of the gospel is required to repent and be saved. If he does so, it is all the Lord's doing. If he doesn't then that's the Lord's will also.
I appreciate the spirit of debate, Mike, and it's something I engage it often, but I'm finding the level of sarcasm here--especially when directed at a new friend of mine and against a set of beliefs I may or may not hold myself--rather dissapointing.
Could we try to debate in a spirit of love, please?
My apologies to the extent that my comments were unloving.
I will not apologize, however, for using sarcasm, satire, or anything else in my handling of the issue unless it was done in a sinful way. Jesus himself used these methods to engage people where appropriate, so a categorical rejection of sarcasm will not do.
I recognize that every action I do is tainted with sin, however, and I will obviously not employ this tool in a completely righteous fashion. Nonetheless, that doesn't mean that we should abandon it all together.
I would sugest reading "The Serrated Edge: a Brief Defense of Biblical Satire and Trinitarian Skylarking" by Douglas Wilson for more on the subject.
Also, it should be noted that you didn't reprove greenhornet for his calling me a damnable heretic. Could you try to reprove in a more even-handed manner, please?
Thank you, Mike. I've actually read and enjoyed very much the book you mentioned. I have no problem with satire in general. All I know is that some of the comments made me uncomfortable, even though they were not directed at me, and since this is my journal I felt it okay to say something. Note that I said the "level of sarcasm" was bothering me, not sarcasm in general. Please don't think that I have anything against you or your position on the matter.
FYI, I had a discussion with greenhornet about this matter elsewhere.
I am probably somewhat to blame for your hostility toward me. I should have used more discernment to respond to your initial opost instead expressing myself so negatively to you, even if I thought your belief was heretical, it was not well done of me, a stranger, to slap you with that belief like I did. I made a statement thoughtlessly that was obviously offensive to you, and for that I apologize. I doubt that you are willing( I wouldn't be in your situation), given my provocative statement, to calmly consider anything that I say to you with a clear or open mind. So I apologize for phrasing my belief so thoughtlessly and unthinkingly provocatively.
I still don't agree with you, but doubt that we can continue in a spirit of love and meekness with a view to truly building each other up in our most Holy faith.
You threw love and meekness out the window when you called me a damnable heretic.
I doubt that you are willing( I wouldn't be in your situation), given my provocative statement, to calmly consider anything that I say to you with a clear or open mind.
I am fully willing to regard anything you say with a clear mind. I never approach anything with an absolutely mind, and well I should not.
So I apologize for phrasing my belief so thoughtlessly and unthinkingly provocatively.
I forgive you. I apologize for calling you a fool and a fathead.
I still don't agree with you, but doubt that we can continue in a spirit of love and meekness with a view to truly building each other up in our most Holy faith.
Iron sharpens iron. Cotton candy doesn't sharpen cotton candy. Engaging in theological polemics will only sharpen us mentally. If we're both teachable from Scrpture, it will also contribute to our mutual sanctification.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2006-07-03 09:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-03 09:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-03 11:39 pm (UTC)There are some who limit atonement, against the clear teaching of scripture, these slander God and His redemptive work.
Not a proponent of limiting God's sovereignty by saying that he can't allow true free will and still be able to accomplish his purposes.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-04 01:13 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-05 09:58 pm (UTC)So that has to be a good thing.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-04 02:52 am (UTC)There is no teaching of unlimited atonement, clear or otherwise in scripture.
You have three options with regard to the atonement:
1.) Absolute Unlimited Atonement: Christ's work atoned for every sin ever. Everybody's sins are forgiven, therefore you are logically forced into universalism. Everybody is going to heaven. Satan and the fallen angels are going to heaven too, because, heck, it would be limiting atonement to not forgive their sins too.
Hopefully, you see the absurdity of this...
Therefore, you must limit atonement in one of the following two ways:
2.) Atonement limited in scope, but unlimited in effectiveness. In this view, which is the L in the Calvinist TULIP, Christ's redeeming work on the cross atoned completely for every sin of the elect, but not for every sin of the reprobate. Therefore, all the atoning work is done by Christ for the elect. This (as we will see) is the only option that accomplishes salvation or even makes is possible for the elect.
3.) Atonement limited in effectiveness but universal in scope. This is the Arminian "Unlimited Atonement." According to this view, Jesus loved everybody in the world and died for the sins of everybody in the world. But the Arminian sees the pitfall of universalism and tries to avoid it by saying that Jesus accomplished most of salvation for those who are saved, but there is something the believer must do in order to finish the job. If this view is true, then man must merit his own salvation. God requires absolute perfection though, so sinful man who is dead (not sick, dead) in his transgressions has no hope of salvation and we're all going to hell.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-05 03:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-05 11:41 pm (UTC)As if you don't carry unscriptural presuppositions to your interpretation of scripture!
careful there,
Date: 2006-07-06 12:07 am (UTC)Re: careful there,
Date: 2006-07-07 10:44 pm (UTC)Like a typical American "fundamentalist," you have one verse to hang onto. That one verse will not be interpreted by the rest of scripture (like say, Proverbs), but by your autonomy.
To be more sensitive to your scruples, though I will revise my statement:
I recommend that you be more reserved with your tongue, fathead.
what the bible says
Date: 2006-07-05 04:23 pm (UTC)"God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life" John 3:16; there are many other "whosoever" in Scripture. Plainly this means anyone, not just the elect.
"Who gave Himself a ransom for all" 1 Timothy 2:6; the "all" is defined by "all men" for whom we are to pray (vs. 1), the "all men" that He desires to be saved.
God is "the Savior of all men, especially of them that believe" 1 Timothy 4:10; God's mercy is available to all Romans 11:32.
Jesus tasted death for every man Hebrews 2:9. "The grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men" Titus 2:11.
"Not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance" 2 Peter 3:9.
"Who will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" 1 Timothy 2:4.
"Whosoever will, let him take of the water of life freely" Revelation 22:17.
"Come unto Me all ye that labor and are heavy laden and I will give you rest" Matthew 11:28.
"Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved" Romans 10:13.
"The grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men" Titus 2:4
Him that cometh unto Me, I will in no wise cast out" John 6:37.
"If I be lifted up, I will draw all men unto Me" John 12:32.
"God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself" 2 Corinthians 5:19. If the world means only the elect, then Christ had no interest in even attempting to reconcile other lost sinners unto Himself.
Provision for all cannot become effective until it is appropriated by faith. A pardon must be received to be valid. A deposit must be drawn upon to be useful. A rope must be grasped to escape. The blood of the Passover Lamb had to be applied to the door posts of the Israelites to be efficacious Exodus 12:7-13.
In summation, a universal and bonafide offer of salvation cannot be preached unless there is a universal provision. If salvation is offered to all men then Christ's death for all is the ground for that offer. Generations of evangelists and missionaries have proclaimed an offer to one and all. No hearer was called to consider first whether he might be among the elect.
Re: what the bible says
Date: 2006-07-06 12:52 am (UTC)You are ignoring all of the scriptural passages that teach God's complete sovereignty over election.
First: The "world"
In assuming that "the world" or even the "whole world" or "every man" means every specific individual, you are neglecting the historical/grammatical exegesis of scripture. The emphasis of Jesus dying for the sins of the world is an attempt to correct the Israel-centeredness of the new testament's audience. Before, the gentiles were cut off from the promise. Now, they are heirs just as much as the physical descendants of Abraham. You have still yet to show how you could possibly avoid universalism. (Which is easily refuted by scripture.) If Jesus atoned fully for every individual human being's sins ever, it would be unjust for God to cast the goats into hell.
Proof texts:
Okay "Mr. Scripture" as you claim to be, I challenge you to support the following assertions you've made with scripture:
-"Not a proponent of limiting God's sovereignty by saying that he can't allow true free will and still be able to accomplish his purposes."
What do you mean by "true free will" here? Are we talking tabula rasa and therefore Pelagianism? Is man's will absolutely free from the control of God? If it is, you will have to rip out the parts of the Bible that refer to Pharaoh, Saul, Judas, and Peter's denial of Jesus (to name but a few of the most blatant examples.)
-If the world means only the elect, then Christ had no interest in even attempting to reconcile other lost sinners unto Himself.
I thought logic was forbidden in our discussion. Thankfully, your conditional statement isn't valid, so you have no need to worry about violating your own standard. Christ had an interest in attempting to reconcile sinners to himself whom he knew wouldn't repent--that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Also, it's rather bold and presumptuous to claim that you know what Christ's interests couldn't be. Produce some scripture to back that up, if you would please.
-"Provision for all cannot become effective until it is appropriated by faith. (scripture please?????) A pardon must be received to be valid. A deposit must be drawn upon to be useful. A rope must be grasped to escape. The blood of the Passover Lamb had to be applied to the door posts of the Israelites to be efficacious Exodus 12:7-13."
It is not of him that will or of him that runs, but of God who shows mercy. I recommend that you read Romans 9 a few times. Memorize it. God is the potter and we are the clay.
Also, you keep forgetting that Adamic man is dead in his transgressions. Not sick, dead. A dead man can't grab for a life line in the water. He's in Davey Jones' locker with his lungs full of water being nibbled on by bottom dwellers. He can't appropriate anything unless the Holy Spririt quickens new life. Then, once regenerate (and only after becoming regenerate) he may appropriate the promise by faith. In order to receive forgiveness through faith, he must already be reborn. He must have had his will (which was in absolute bondage to sin) changed by nothing less than a miraculous act of God before he can receive anything.
"No hearer was called to consider first whether he might be among the elect."
And the straw mand is down! He's beating the stuffing out of that straw man with all his might! I never claimed that a hearer of the gospel was required to consider first whether he is one of the elect. Calvin never claimed it either. Have you ever read any Calvin? (Like, say, a paragraph?) You might want to do so before dismissing him as anathema... A hearer of the gospel is required to repent and be saved. If he does so, it is all the Lord's doing. If he doesn't then that's the Lord's will also.
Yours in damnable heresy,
Mike
Re: what the bible says
Date: 2006-07-06 01:52 am (UTC)Could we try to debate in a spirit of love, please?
Re: what the bible says
Date: 2006-07-07 10:39 pm (UTC)I will not apologize, however, for using sarcasm, satire, or anything else in my handling of the issue unless it was done in a sinful way. Jesus himself used these methods to engage people where appropriate, so a categorical rejection of sarcasm will not do.
I recognize that every action I do is tainted with sin, however, and I will obviously not employ this tool in a completely righteous fashion. Nonetheless, that doesn't mean that we should abandon it all together.
I would sugest reading "The Serrated Edge: a Brief Defense of Biblical Satire and Trinitarian Skylarking" by Douglas Wilson for more on the subject.
Also, it should be noted that you didn't reprove
Re: what the bible says
Date: 2006-07-07 10:49 pm (UTC)FYI, I had a discussion with
Re: what the bible says
Date: 2006-07-07 10:57 pm (UTC)Using such a level of sarcasm with stranger can be unwise.
Re: what the bible says
Date: 2006-07-06 07:47 pm (UTC)I still don't agree with you, but doubt that we can continue in a spirit of love and meekness with a view to truly building each other up in our most Holy faith.
Re: what the bible says
Date: 2006-07-07 10:54 pm (UTC)I doubt that you are willing( I wouldn't be in your situation), given my provocative statement, to calmly consider anything that I say to you with a clear or open mind.
I am fully willing to regard anything you say with a clear mind. I never approach anything with an absolutely mind, and well I should not.
So I apologize for phrasing my belief so thoughtlessly and unthinkingly provocatively.
I forgive you. I apologize for calling you a fool and a fathead.
I still don't agree with you, but doubt that we can continue in a spirit of love and meekness with a view to truly building each other up in our most Holy faith.
Iron sharpens iron. Cotton candy doesn't sharpen cotton candy. Engaging in theological polemics will only sharpen us mentally. If we're both teachable from Scrpture, it will also contribute to our mutual sanctification.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-04 02:35 am (UTC)There was perfect love and harmony between the members of the trinity before the creation of the world.
God loved man without forgiveness before the fall and Adam and Eve loved each other without forgiveness before they fell.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-04 03:13 am (UTC)I guess I was thinking in human relationships. Can there be love without forgiveness?
Can there be forgiveness without love?
no subject
Date: 2006-07-06 12:50 am (UTC)