The Highway

"Christ died in a general way for all."?

Posted By: Anonymous

"Christ died in a general way for all."? - Mon Dec 06, 2004 9:08 PM

J Edwards said
"Christ died in a general way for all. There are benefits for both believers and non-believers. There is common grace applied to all in the Crucifixion. A good example of this is the preaching of the Word of God (the Gospel, the death, burial, and resurrection) to the unsaved. The mere fact they even hear it is common grace, et. al....."

I am not sure if I agree with this statement. Im not sure if I would ever say "Christ died for all." I was taught that all my life, but totally disagree. I know you did not mean it in a soteriological way yet it seems that is the only way it can be meant. I agree that there is a common grace in preaching the gospel but that in no way means his death was "in a general way" for them. I remember the first time I heard someone, who was reformed, say Christ died for all was in an article by charles hodge called "whom Christ died."
I would be interested in the scripture used for this belief.
I am interested in others opinions. Thanks
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: "Christ died in a general way for all."? - Tue Dec 07, 2004 5:44 AM

What Edwards, I believe, was referring to was indeed "Common Grace." Here are some links that you may find edifying:

http://www.mbrem.com/calvinism/commongrace.htm

http://www.ldolphin.org/common.html

http://www.sounddoctrine.net/LIBRARY/Modern%20Day%20Reform%20Teaching/John%20Murray/Common_Grace.htm

http://www.bibleteacher.org/cg.htm
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: "Christ died in a general way for all."? - Tue Dec 07, 2004 7:23 PM

Thanks Ted. But I am aware that he was talking about common grace. And I also believe in common grace(Matt 5:45).
I am not sure we can apply this to the cross though. My question is, how did Christ die for every individual, even if it was in a general way.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: "Christ died in a general way for all."? - Tue Dec 07, 2004 7:41 PM

Ted, the articles you posted on common grace do not answer or bring up my question. I read them and basically agree<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/cheers2.gif" alt="" /> with all of them. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bananas.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bananas.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bananas.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: "Christ died in a general way for all."? - Fri Dec 10, 2004 9:33 PM

does anyone know where it says Christ died in a general way for all?
Posted By: J_Edwards

Re: "Christ died in a general way for all."? - Fri Dec 10, 2004 9:59 PM

Without getting into allot of detail did Christ die for You? If yes, have your ethics changed to glorify God? If yes again, are they affecting "all" you come in contact with. If yes, then Christ died for "all" in a general way. We could ask further if the Gospel is heard by both the elect and non-elect, if yes, then Christ died for all at least in a general way, etc. When Christ died/rose again He secured the ONLY way of salvation. Thus, the non-elect have no other way to God--thus, Christ died for all, etc.
Posted By: Tom

Re: "Christ died in a general way for all."? - Fri Dec 10, 2004 11:10 PM

J_Edward

I agree with what you have written, but usually when someone says that Christ died for all in a general way, they use a verse like John 3:16 to back it up.

If I understand you correctly this is not the aspect you are talking about. John 3:16 as far as I can tell, is talking about an effectual kind of love that leads to salvation. So, I don't think John 3:16 can legitimately be used to support that argument.

Tom
Posted By: J_Edwards

Re: "Christ died in a general way for all."? - Sat Dec 11, 2004 1:49 PM

Tom, I don't recall using John 3:16 as a defense of what I stated, but Christ still died for all in a general way.... Common grace is a theme both in the O.T. and the N.T. Do you or anyone else have any biblical defenses against Christ dieing for all men in a general way?
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: "Christ died in a general way for all."? - Sat Dec 11, 2004 4:55 PM

Quote
J_Edwards said:
Do you or anyone else have any biblical defenses against Christ dieing for all men in a general way?

Joe,

I understand what you are trying to set forth, i.e., that from the atonement which Christ accomplished for "His own", there are residual benefits which flow from those to whom the benefits belong to the rest of mankind. However, I have to say that the phraseology is one that I think brings unnecessary confusion, if for no other reason than that the majority of churches hold to a universal atonement and use that same phrase to describe their heretical doctrine. I personally prefer to speak of common grace as being distinct from the atonement to avoid any possible misunderstanding of that blessed doctrine of Particular Redemption. grin

In His Grace,
Posted By: J_Edwards

Re: "Christ died in a general way for all."? - Sat Dec 11, 2004 5:46 PM

Well so much for attempting to be brief, Common Grace is not the only issue as I alluded to earlier, but it still flows from the Cross (see Murray below) and thus IMO 'common grace cannot be looked at as being distinct from the atonement.' Another problem is that some individuals only look at the "positive aspects" of the term "general." Looking at the negative aspects, Christ did accomplish "something" for the non-elect on the Cross, and thus, ... Though the non-elect are "already condemned" (John 3:18) Christ sealed their judgment in His death/resurrection. He is LORD of ALL. EVERY knee will bow and the list goes on. Thus, Christ did die in a general way for ALL... For the elect He accomplished their salvation and for the non-elect He sealed their judgment. If we remove the fact that Christ did die to seal the judgment of the non-elect we remove a very valuable part of the Gospel IMO. Additionally, IMO it is difficult to separate common grace from the Cross, as Christ is LORD of all including common grace, etc.

As Murray states in Redemption Accomplished and Applied, The unbelieving and reprobate in this world enjoy numerous benefits that flow from the fact that Christ died and rose again. The mediatorial dominion of Christ is universal. Christ is head over all things and is given all authority in heaven and earth. It is within the mediatorial dominion that all the blessings which men enjoy are dispensed. But this dominion Christ exercises on the basis and as the reward of his finished work of redemption... (Phil 2:8-9). Consequentially, since all benefits and blessings are within the realm of Christ's dominion and since this dominion rests upon his finished work of atonement, the benefits innumerable which are enjoyed by all men indiscriminately are related to the death of Christ and may be said to accrue from it in one way or another. If they flow thus flow from the death they were intended thus to flow. It is proper, therefore, to say that the enjoyment of certain benefits, even by the non-elect and reprobate, falls within the design of the death of Christ.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: "Christ died in a general way for all."? - Mon Dec 13, 2004 4:00 AM

I agree with what pilgrim said but i admit i did not look at the "negative" things it accomplished for the non-elect.
Posted By: Tom

Re: "Christ died in a general way for all."? - Mon Dec 13, 2004 4:54 AM

Joe

I never said you did use John 3:16. I said that usually when I hear someone say that.
I also qualified what I was saying by telling you that I agreed with the way you said it.

Tom
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: "Christ died in a general way for all."? - Tue Dec 14, 2004 6:19 AM

Please consider the following passages of Scripture:

Romans 11:32 (NASB)
"For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all."

1 Corinthians 15:22 (NASB)
"For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive."

2 Corinthians 5:14-15 (NASB)
"For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died; and He died for all, so that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf."

2 Thessalonians 3:18 (NASB)
"The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all."

1 Timothy 2:5-6
"For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time."
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: "Christ died in a general way for all."? - Tue Dec 14, 2004 9:07 PM

Ted, thanks for the scripture. I would encourage you to look at all of those verses in context and in light of what all other scripture reveals. I would say that all of the scripture given, in context, does not affirm Christs death for all(every individual). I would love to see you exegete any one of them.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: "Christ died in a general way for all."? - Wed Dec 15, 2004 3:44 AM

JE,

I would argue that all things work to the bad for those who hate God and are not called according to his purpose. These so called "blessings" are curses. God is good to the reprobate but since his goodness will accuse the reprobate on the last day, I see the goodness of God as curses for the reprobate.

Blessings,

Ron
Posted By: J_Edwards

Re: "Christ died in a general way for all."? - Wed Dec 15, 2004 10:31 AM

I agree that there are covenant curses and blessings. The reprobate are cursed.

Quote
RonD said,

I would argue that all things work to the bad for those who hate God and are not called according to his purpose.

This is a cute one laugh except that the reprobate IMO are called according to His purpose:

Quote
Rom 9:22 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:

Jude 4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: "Christ died in a general way for all."? - Wed Dec 15, 2004 2:23 PM

Quote
J_Edwards said:
I agree that there are covenant curses and blessings. The reprobate are cursed.

Quote
RonD said,

I would argue that all things work to the bad for those who hate God and are not called according to his purpose.

This is a cute one <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> except that the reprobate IMO are called according to His purpose:

Quote
Rom 9:22 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:

Jude 4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.


This is to equivocate over the word "purpose". The verse I referenced has to do with the purpose of blessing and glory. Moreover, in the context of this discussion, reprobates do not receive blessings or grace, just goodness. There is a difference that is profound. I'm delighted to see that you agree that God in his wisdom has ordained the reprobate to his final end.

Blessings,

Ron
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: "Christ died in a general way for all."? - Wed Dec 15, 2004 3:05 PM

Quote
Rom 9:19-24 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? 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? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? 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: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? (KJV)


Longsuffering is what I call it. While I think the reprobate receive benefits from God and the elect, they do so to their own destruction.


God bless,

william
Posted By: J_Edwards

Re: "Christ died in a general way for all."? - Wed Dec 15, 2004 3:30 PM

Quote
Moreover, in the context of this discussion, reprobates do not receive blessings or grace, just goodness.


Do you agree that reprobates receive common grace or are you using the term goodness instead of common grace (I prefer Murray on Common Grace, but...)? In addition, the reprobates are called to/for a purpose, and I do not think this should be lost in our evaluation of the matter at hand.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: "Christ died in a general way for all."? - Wed Dec 15, 2004 7:02 PM

Quote
J_Edwards said:
Quote
Moreover, in the context of this discussion, reprobates do not receive blessings or grace, just goodness.


Do you agree that reprobates receive common grace or are you using the term goodness instead of common grace (I prefer Murray on Common Grace, but...)? In addition, the reprobates are called to/for a purpose, and I do not think this should be lost in our evaluation of the matter at hand.


I don't particularly care for the term "common grace" in the context of reprobation, if for no other reason I don't think that God's favor rests upon reprobates. Yes indeedy!, God has a purpose for the reprobate, which is to his glory and the good of the elect.

Kindly,

Ron
Posted By: J_Edwards

Re: "Christ died in a general way for all."? - Thu Dec 16, 2004 12:49 PM

Quote
Ron D said:

I don't particularly care for the term "common grace" in the context of reprobation, if for no other reason I don't think that God's favor rests upon reprobates. Yes indeedy!, God has a purpose for the reprobate, which is to his glory and the good of the elect.

Kindly,

Ron


OH, I do not think God's favor rests on them either. My understanding of Common Grace is more like the common earthly gifts (rain, wealth, etc.) that God gives the ungodly, not a favorable attitude of God toward them. Common grace is 'favors', not favor. God's attitude toward the reprobate is hatred (Psa 5:5). However as Murray states, "It is proper, therefore, to say that the enjoyment of certain benefits, even by the non-elect and reprobate, falls within the design of the death of Christ."
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: "Christ died in a general way for all."? - Sat Dec 18, 2004 6:10 AM

Quote
Soli Deo Gloria said:
Ted, thanks for the scripture. I would encourage you to look at all of those verses in context and in light of what all other scripture reveals. I would say that all of the scripture given, in context, does not affirm Christs death for all(every individual). I would love to see you exegete any one of them.


Soli, in the words of Louis Gossett, Jr.'s character in the movie, An Officer and a Gentleman, "Where ya' been all your life? Listenin' to rock 'n roll music and bad mouthin' yer country?"

Get out yer spectacles (that's "glasses" for you young folks!) an' follow along wit' me:

In the 2Corinthians 5 verses, the Apostle is 'splainin' 'bout Christ's love for "all," having died (on the cross) for "all" "on their behalf." Now, you and I, bein' Calvinists, KNOW that the Apostle weren't talkin' 'bout some weak-kneed "offer" to all. And we know that the Apostle wasn't talkin' 'bout Jesus savin' EVERYONE, so . . . . . the Apostle MUST be talkin' about something -- in a general way -- that's come to "all" as a result of Christ's death on the cross. "Common grace," as you most graciously agreed with my earlier post!

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/cheers2.gif" alt="" />

Ditto for the 1Timothy 2 passage of scripture.

Furthermore, may I add another passage of Holy Scripture to the mix? Ephesians 4:7. Let's look at it in context . . . .

Ephesians 4:1-7 (ESV):
<sup>1</sup>I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, <sup>2</sup>with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, <sup>3</sup>eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. <sup>4</sup>There is one body and one Spirit--just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call-- <sup>5</sup>one Lord, one faith, one baptism, <sup>6</sup>one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. <sup>7</sup>But grace was given to each one of us according to the measure of Christ's gift. <sup>8</sup>Therefore it says, "When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men."

"Grace," my boy or -- if I may so boldly "exegete" -- "Common grace," was "given to each of us" through "Christ's gift" on the cross. Amen? (I say it for you, "Amen!")

Jestfully, yet respectfully, submitted with Christ's love (and seeking YOUR grace!),
Ted
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: "Christ died in a general way for all."? - Sat Dec 18, 2004 6:18 PM

Thanks Ted!
Its good to see we agree that these verses do not teach a general redemption. But I am not so sure they are talking about "common grace."
In 1 cor 5:14-15 the "all" is not referring to all mankind in a general way but all his people or sheep.

And like the 1599 Geneva Study bible says
Quote
Eph4:7 (5) But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the f gift of Christ.

(5) He teaches us that we indeed are all one body, and that all good gifts proceed from Christ alone, who reigns in heaven having mightily conquered all his enemies, from where he heaps all gifts upon his Church. But yet nonetheless these gifts are differently and variously divided according to his will and pleasure, and therefore every man ought to be content with that measure that God has given him, and to bestow it to the common profit of the whole body.
(f) Which Christ has given.


The gifts given are to Christs body or the church.
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: "Christ died in a general way for all."? - Sat Dec 18, 2004 7:07 PM

Quote
Ted said:
In the 2Corinthians 5 verses, the Apostle is 'splainin' 'bout Christ's love for "all," having died (on the cross) for "all" "on their behalf." Now, you and I, bein' Calvinists, KNOW that the Apostle weren't talkin' 'bout some weak-kneed "offer" to all. And we know that the Apostle wasn't talkin' 'bout Jesus savin' EVERYONE, so . . . . . the Apostle MUST be talkin' about something -- in a general way -- that's come to "all" as a result of Christ's death on the cross. "Common grace," as you most graciously agreed with my earlier post!

I don't think so, Ted! grin To iterate my position, I do NOT think that it is proper to speak of Christ dying for all, due to the fact that in most every instance where the word for is used in the context of redemption, specifically in reference to the atonement, it has the connotation of "in behalf of", i.e., substitution. Scripture simply won't allow me to speak, therefore, of Christ's death having been for (in behalf of) all, i.e., in any way. Yes, there are residual benefits that flow from those who are recipients of that atonement, but there are none that come directly from it to the non-elect, IMHO. I think Ron made this point also.

Okay.... now on to the text of 2Cor 5:15:


2 Corinthians 5:14-15 (ASV) "For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that one died for all, therefore all died; and he died for all, that they that live should no longer live unto themselves, but unto him who for their sakes died and rose again."



First, the context of this passage is rightly seen in its overall context which is that Paul is not speaking of a relationship of Christ to all men but of Christ's relationship to His Church. Secondly, I would establish that the death of Christ, as described here, is undeniably one of "substitution" and not one merely of which expresses the love of God or any other such notion. The result of "one died" is that "all died"; because "A", therefore "B". There is a direct relationship between Christ's death and the "all died". Can it be said that those "all" (all without exception) for whom Christ died also died? Thirdly, there is also included a purpose in Christ's death which is that those for whom He died should no longer live unto themselves but unto Him. So likewise, can it be said that those for whom Christ died (all without exception) no longer live unto themselves but unto Him?

If one wishes to submit that the "all" used in this passage is indeed referring to every man, woman and child without exception, then one is forced to embrace Universalism; all men inclusively are saved. On the other hand, if one wishes to make the "for" to mean something other than substitutionary, then one is forced to embrace some form of synergism. In this case, Christ's death didn't actually secure anything other than the possibility of one being saved if they will do xxxxx.

Conclusion, the "all" in this passage is referring to the elect of God; the believers or those who will come to faith, in Christ. The atonement of Christ is not being dealt with in some general terms, but specifically with the end result that it brought about the death of all those for whom it was intended (efficient) and a new life which is focused upon living for the LORD Jesus Christ and not as it was beforehand; self-centered.

In His Grace,
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: "Christ died in a general way for all."? - Sun Dec 19, 2004 2:36 AM

I think we agree over our theology. I just don't think that "grace" is the happiest of terms. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/cheers2.gif" alt="" />

Ron
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: "Christ died in a general way for all."? - Sun Dec 19, 2004 6:24 PM

Well said Pilgrim!
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: "Christ died in a general way for all."? - Tue Dec 21, 2004 5:39 AM

Please forgive me for misusing the 2Corinthians 5 passages to support "common grace."

As for what Jonathan Edwards wrote regarding "Christ died in a general way for all," I STILL think that he was referring to "common grace."

John Murray wrote:
Quote

Unregenerate men receive operations and influences of the Spirit in connection with the administration of the gospel, influences that result in experience of the power and glory of the gospel, yet influences which do not issue in genuine and lasting conversion and are finally withdrawn.


Louis Berkoff wrote:
Quote

Reformed theologians generally hesitate to say that Christ by His atoning blood merited these blessings for the impenitent and reprobate. At the same time they do believe that important natural benefits accrue to the whole human race from the death of Christ, and that in these benefits the unbelieving, the impenitent, and the reprobate also share. In every covenant transaction recorded in Scripture it appears that the covenant of grace carries with it not only spiritual but also material blessings, and those material blessings are generally of such a kind that they are naturally shared also by unbelievers. Says Cunningham: "Many blessings flow to mankind at large from the death of Christ, collaterally and incidentally, in consequence of the relation in which men, viewed collectively, stand to each other." And it is but natural that this should be so. If Christ was to save an elect race, gradually called out of the world of humanity in the course of centuries, it became necessary for God to exercise forbearance, to check the course of evil, to promote the development of the natural powers of man, to keep alive within the hearts of men a desire for civil righteousness, for external morality and good order in society, and to shower untold blessings upon mankind in general. Dr. Hodge expresses it thus: "It is very plain that any plan designed to secure the salvation of an elect portion of a race propagated by generation and living in association, as is the case with mankind, cannot secure its end without greatly affecting, for better or for worse, the character and destiny of all the rest of the race not elected." He quotes Dr. Candlish to the effect that "the entire history of the human race, from the apostasy to the final judgment, is a dispensation of forbearance in respect to the reprobate, in which many blessings, physical and moral, affecting their characters and destinies forever, accrue even to the heathen, and many more to the educated and refined citizens of Christian communities. These come to them through the mediation of Christ, and coming to them now, must have been designed for them from the beginning." These general blessings of mankind, indirectly resulting from the atoning work of Christ, were not only foreseen by God, but designed by Him as blessings for all concerned. It is perfectly true, of course, that the design of God in the work of Christ pertained primarily and directly, not to the temporal well-being of men in general, but to the redemption of the elect; but secondarily and indirectly it also included the natural blessings bestowed on mankind indiscriminately. All that the natural man receives other than curse and death is an indirect result of the redemptive work of Christ.


To emphasize, ". . . important natural benefits accrue to the whole human race from the death of Christ, and that in these benefits the unbelieving, the impenitent, and the reprobate also share. In every covenant transaction recorded in Scripture it appears that the covenant of grace carries with it not only spiritual but also material blessings, and those material blessings are generally of such a kind that they are naturally shared also by unbelievers."
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: "Christ died in a general way for all."? - Tue Dec 21, 2004 8:23 AM

Ted,

I thought I had made it clear that I do believe that there are "general benefits" which the reprobate and unregenerate share by virtue of the direct benefits given to the elect. I have no problem if one desires to call these residual benefits part of God's common grace. But my objection has always been in the "language" used in this thread, i.e., "Christ died for all in a general way"; insisting that such language most always connotes "in behalf of" (aka: substitution). So to iterate my objection: Yes, there are general/common benefits which flow to all mankind from Christ's death of a physical/material nature. But Christ's death was specifically designed and accomplished for the elect and them only. There may be crumbs which fall from the master's table. But they are not to be understood as being synonymous with the actual food that was served to someone else.

You can call me "picky" if you wish. But I think it is essential that we protect the biblical terminology used in regard to Christ's atonement, which was purposed and accomplished for all those whom the Father gave Him. grin

In His Grace,
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: "Christ died in a general way for all."? - Tue Dec 21, 2004 1:47 PM

Quote
Pilgrim said:
Ted,

I thought I had made it clear that I do believe that there are "general benefits" which the reprobate and unregenerate share by virtue of the direct benefits given to the elect. I have no problem if one desires to call these residual benefits part of God's common grace. But my objection has always been in the "language" used in this thread, i.e., "Christ died for all in a general way"; insisting that such language most always connotes "in behalf of" (aka: substitution). So to iterate my objection: Yes, there are general/common benefits which flow to all mankind from Christ's death of a physical/material nature. But Christ's death was specifically designed and accomplished for the elect and them only. There may be crumbs which fall from the master's table. But they are not to be understood as being synonymous with the actual food that was served to someone else.

You can call me "picky" if you wish. But I think it is essential that we protect the biblical terminology used in regard to Christ's atonement, which was purposed and accomplished for all those whom the Father gave Him. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,


Pilgrim,

I don't think you're being picky at all. I believe your point is well taken and well stated. This issue has to do with the design and intent of the atonement. Sure, God knew that crumbs would fall from the table but this is a bi-product of the atonement and not some teleological end.

Blessed Christmas,

Ron
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: "Christ died in a general way for all."? - Tue Dec 21, 2004 6:00 PM

Quote
Ron D said:
I don't think you're being picky at all. I believe your point is well taken and well stated. This issue has to do with the design and intent of the atonement. Sure, God knew that crumbs would fall from the table but this is a bi-product of the atonement and not some teleological end.

Ron,

Thanks for the affirmation. Perhaps I can make my view even clearer by simply saying that when Christ hung on the cross, the names of all whom the Father gave Him and for whom he suffered were impressed upon His mind, heart and soul and none other. It was for them whom He came, it was for them that He lived a perfectly righteous life, it was for them that He suffered with agony beyond the ability of any human to comprehend and it was for them and to them that He sent His Spirit to apply all that He merited for them.

In His grace..... and a Blessed Christmas to you and your house as well!
Posted By: MarieP

Re: "Christ died in a general way for all."? - Tue Dec 21, 2004 7:13 PM

Ron,

Very well said, and, no, I don't think Pilgrim is being picky either.
Posted By: MarieP

Re: "Christ died in a general way for all."? - Tue Dec 21, 2004 7:15 PM

Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men with whom He is pleased! grin
Posted By: J_Edwards

Re: "Christ died in a general way for all."? - Tue Dec 21, 2004 11:57 PM

Quote
Pilgrim said,

I thought I had made it clear that I do believe that there are "general benefits" which the reprobate and unregenerate share by virtue of the direct benefits given to the elect. I have no problem if one desires to call these residual benefits part of God's common grace. But my objection has always been in the "language" used in this thread, i.e., "Christ died for all in a general way"; insisting that such language most always connotes "in behalf of" (aka: substitution). So to iterate my objection: Yes, there are general/common benefits which flow to all mankind from Christ's death of a physical/material nature. But Christ's death was specifically designed and accomplished for the elect and them only. There may be crumbs which fall from the master's table. But they are not to be understood as being synonymous with the actual food that was served to someone else.

You can call me "picky" if you wish. But I think it is essential that we protect the biblical terminology used in regard to Christ's atonement, which was purposed and accomplished for all those whom the Father gave Him.

Though I understand your concerns and it is wise to protect the words and phrases it is also important to restore them back if they been abused, etc. It is also unwise to assert only incomplete truths. IMO this is what you, RonD, and others are mistakenly doing.

First, you are asserting only the positive side of the Cross. By denying Jesus died for all in a “general way,” you embrace that He died only for the elect. As you know I also agree that Jesus died effectually only for the already elect—this is not under contention. However, when Calvary took place Jesus also sealed the fate for the already condemned (John 3:18). There is no other way of salvation (John 14:6). In addition, Jesus is LORD over ALL and this lordship was sealed by way of the Cross (Phil 2:5-11). This is one way Jesus died for “all” in a general way.

Second, you assert the misuse of the word for. Indeed, some do misuse it to their own shame, however the way you assert it is not necessarily the way I, the author of the original quote in question, meant it—which you have already acknowledged.

Joined to this though you made the assertion that: But my objection has always been in the "language" used in this thread,.. and But I think it is essential that we protect the biblical terminology used in regard to Christ's atonement, and then you assert, There may be crumbs which fall from the master's table… RonD asserts, Sure, God knew that crumbs would fall from the table but this is a bi-product of the atonement and not some teleological end.

What is profound here is on the one hand you assert that you are “protecting the biblical terminology” and you then distort the actual scripture itself? May we call this crumby exegesis rolleyes2 This Gentile woman exhibited saving faith. Saving grace is being exhibited here not mere common grace (please note the references to LORD and Master in the text; Matt 15:27, Mark 7:26, etc.). This is not some mere “bi-product of the atonement!” What is happening here is the woman reveals a tenacious faith even as a Gentile (v. 28). Jesus explicitly commends this faith. While Jesus may have granted common grace to a “Christian” in the healing of her daughter, the crumbs refer to the saving faith of this Gentile woman… May all of us Gentiles eat of these crumbs which are not the mere “common grace” that you asserted! Read the Baker N.T. Commentary for a complete exegesis.

Lastly, “common grace” may not be looked at as distinct from the Cross. This is yet another way Christ died for the non-elect. Murray made this exceptionally clear saying in Redemption Accomplished and Applied,

Quote
The unbelieving and reprobate in this world enjoy numerous benefits that flow from the fact that Christ died and rose again. The mediatorial dominion of Christ is universal. Christ is head over all things and is given all authority in heaven and earth. It is within the mediatorial dominion that all the blessings which men enjoy are dispensed. But this dominion Christ exercises on the basis and as the reward of his finished work of redemption... (Phil 2:8-9). Consequentially, since all benefits and blessings are within the realm of Christ's dominion and since this dominion rests upon his finished work of atonement, the benefits innumerable which are enjoyed by all men indiscriminately are related to the death of Christ and may be said to accrue from it in one way or another. If they flow thus flow from the death they were intended thus to flow. It is proper, therefore, to say that the enjoyment of certain benefits, even by the non-elect and reprobate, falls within the design of the death of Christ.

In denying Christ died for all men in a “general way” you do away with the actual fact of the source of “common grace.” If common grace is not sourced at Calvary pray tell where is its source, etc.?

All of you have a Merry Christmas—we are off to see relatives and thus will be unavailable to defend this post further, but hopefully the light will turn on for someone… hello
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: "Christ died in a general way for all."? - Wed Dec 22, 2004 3:25 AM

Quote
SemperReformanda said:
Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men with whom He is pleased! grin


Amen and amen.

BTW, our church switched to the ESV and it says "pleased". I prefer "on whom his favor rests". "Pleased" seems to connote a quid pro quo, whereas "favor" seems more in line with unconditional election. Thoughts?

Christmas Blessings!

Ron
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: "Christ died in a general way for all."? - Fri Dec 24, 2004 8:56 AM

One aspect of the Cross is that it abated for a time God's judgement upon sin ( I cannot remember who said that, but it does make some sense).

For this reason-- the reprobate do enjoy a 'charisma', a 'gift' from what Christ accomplished on the Cross.

Christ died for God and God was satisfied with Christ's sacrifice.

The general call to repent and believe is made to all, yet only those who are Gods elect will respond. And if I expound on that theme, it will take us off track..

However scripture does show where God bestows grace ( using 'grace' loosely, in the sense of a 'gift'):

that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. (MAtt 5:45 NKJV)

So scripturally, we can see God bestowing common gifts enjoyed by both the regenrate and the unregenrate.. by the vessels of his glory, and the intstruments of his wrath, and bestowing it upon them collectively.

The original question though was; IS the work of the cross, a common gift for all to enjoy? The answer is no.

Only those who have been saved, who have been called, who have been redeemed will recieve any anjoyment from the work of Christ ( mans Chief end is to glorify God and ENJOY Him forever).. the work of the cross is foolishness to them that perish..

Pilgrim outside of the Holy City, sees the sign above the Celestial City gate "All ye who would enter in"-- as he crosses over the threshold, he looks back at the gate and the sign above it now reads: "many are called, but few are chosen"

( I may have misquoted Bunyon.. its late-- almost 3:00 am here, so If I did: MEA CULPA)

I probably didn't add anything to this thread-- perhaps I just felt a need to 'pontificate'. who knows.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: "Christ died in a general way for all."? - Sun Dec 26, 2004 4:28 AM

Might I belabor the point one more time to possibly show where the regenerate and reprobate enjoy common grace from what Christ accomplished on the cross...? I realize that this might be a reversal from my previous post-- but upon further reflection, I need to make this retraction.

Zech 3:9
'For behold, the stone that I have set before Joshua; on one stone are seven eyes. Behold, I will engrave an inscription on it,' declares the LORD of hosts, 'and I will remove the iniquity of that land in one day'

Isa 9:7
There will be no end to the increase of {His} government or of peace, On the throne of David and over his kingdom, To establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness From then on and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will accomplish this.

It appears that Christ coming and accomplishing what he did for us had some effects ( i.e. the lands sin-- is this the physical earth, or the region-- had its sin removed in one day.---- Of the increase of his Government.. even the reprobate are citizens of his Kingdom, and of his government. SO the benefits that fall to us from that moment on the cross, seem to be spilling over to them as well. )

Also -- just an idea.. and I could be off base, but again I am still reflecting on this-- it just occurred to me.

As Covenant theology believers--we believe the promise extends to us and our immiediate family members. IN fact, if our spouse is not a believer, they and our children are considered 'Holy' before the Lord.. Is not this also a form of 'common grace' which they share?

I also realize that even though they be viewed as Holy before the Lord, we still believe they need to come to a saving knowledge of the truth, or else sadly they too will perish, but while they are alive, they enjoy a benefit of what Christ did on the cross-- that work was for the elect-- but it seems to me that scripturally I have found enough scriptural references to 'begin' to say that: "the un-regenerated man enojoys some common benefit, and some common grace because of what Christ did for his Elect".

For someone who has been un-formally trained-- its just my 2 copper pennies worth is all.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: "Christ died in a general way for all."? - Fri Dec 31, 2004 4:03 PM

To all,

It is amazing how reason and logic can run so afoul of scripture.
Common Grace has nothing in the least to do with the Cross of Christ's work on the Cross. The moment creation came into existance, common grace came into effect. It is what upholds this universe. We live and move and have our being from God. If He would at any moment remove Grace, we would die, strivel and return to the void, not just dust, but the void of precreation.

Regarding the "all" that for some of you means "all" for some it means a particular 'all".
Scripturally, in speaking about salvation one must align it with what we are being saved from.
Christ's work was to overcome the fall of Adam.
The Scriptures, is quite clear, that this is in fact, what He accomplished. If all men received the judgement of Adam, Death, then Christ must restore that fallen condition. If Adam was universal in its effect, then Christ's work must also be universal in its effect.
The universe itself suffered the effects of Death, so therefore the uinverse is also redeemed.
That is precisely what Scripture affirms clearly with the following:
II Cor 5:14-19; Col 1:15-20; Eph 1:10, John 5:28-29; Rom 5:14-19; I Cor 15:20-22; John 12:32.

Christ's work on the Cross is a universal redemption. Someone stated that it cannot be universal because we know that not all are saved. This is a result of an incorrect supposition being put on scripture to prove something else. The salvation of man, individually, is clearly not universal. The universal redemption of Christ provided the means whereby man could again enter into a union with God. A union that Adam had before the fall. Again, the two must align or you will be buried in confusion. All of mankind was saved from DEATH. The texts above clearly point this out. Adam died, Christ gives LIFE. So much so, that all men will recieve immortality, eternal life. This is born out in Acts 24:15; as well as Acts 23:6, though not as clear. Also Rev 20:11-15.
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: "Christ died in a general way for all."? - Fri Dec 31, 2004 4:12 PM

Quote
sojourner said:
All of mankind was saved from DEATH. The texts above clearly point this out. Adam died, Christ gives LIFE. So much so, that all men will recieve immortality, eternal life. This is born out in Acts 24:15; as well as Acts 23:6, though not as clear. Also Rev 20:11-15.

[Linked Image] I surely don't want to misunderstand what you are intending to say in this quote, so let me ask you directly: Are you positing that ALL (i.e., every man, woman and child that has, does and every will walk the face of this earth) are going to be saved? i.e., you deny the biblical doctrine of eternal punishment and hold to universal redemption?

In His Grace,
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: "Christ died in a general way for all."? - Fri Dec 31, 2004 4:39 PM

Pilgrim,

Quote
I surely don't want to misunderstand what you are intending to say in this quote, so let me ask you directly: Are you positing that ALL (i.e., every man, woman and child that has, does and every will walk the face of this earth) are going to be saved? i.e., you deny the biblical doctrine of eternal punishment and hold to universal redemption?


I thought that I quite clearly stated the difference as is done in scripture. The answer to your first question is, NO.
However, Christ's redemption is universal. The salvation of individual man is not. There is a vast difference. Unless of course, you believe that some men did not fall under the judgement of Adam.
That also, since you mentioned the doctrine of eternal punishment, would not be possible if only some are redeemed. Your understanding is that some are redeemed, thus only some are saved.
If that be true, then hell does not even exist. That was the whole purpose of Christ coming in the first place. To correct the fall and save His own creation from annhilation.
Posted By: J_Edwards

Re: "Christ died in a general way for all."? - Fri Dec 31, 2004 5:46 PM

Quote
However, Christ's redemption is universal.

Scripture speaks of Christ “actually” accomplishing redemption for His “church,” for the “sheep”, etc. and not “goats” etc. It is limited in design, not power. If Christ accomplished the redemption of ALL mankind (without exception), none could ever be lost, as ALL sin (including that of “unbelief”) would already be forgiven….

Please read these articles on Limited Atonement for a more in-depth view of Scripture on the topic, as the view you are asserting has been condemned by the Church for centuries....

Respectfully, I am sure Pilgrim and others will reply to the rest of the errors in your post.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: "Christ died in a general way for all."? - Fri Dec 31, 2004 7:20 PM

J Edwards,

Quote
Scripture speaks of Christ “actually” accomplishing redemption for His “church,” for the “sheep”, etc. and not “goats” etc. It is limited in design, not power. If Christ accomplished the redemption of ALL mankind (without exception), none could ever be lost, as ALL sin (including that of “unbelief”) would already be forgiven….


You assert without any texts. What specific texts would refute the texts that I showed in an earlier post? Actually redemption was for the world, for the universe, the physical world as well, which mankind is a part of.

You believe none could be lost because you hold to a view that is not scriptural, that redemption of mankind is the same as the salvation of man. You would need show as well, based on the texts given already, that some men never died, never fell under the judgement of Adam in order to make them stand.

Also, Christ did not accomplish forgiveness of mankind. He provided atonement for mankind. Atonement is not, does not mean forgiveness. He removed the penalty of sins, so that those in Christ can be forgiven, thus not be condemned. He brought Life, overcame the fall.

Quote
Please read these articles on Limited Atonement for a more in-depth view of Scripture on the topic, as the view you are asserting has been condemned by the Church for centuries....
Limited atonement is a calvinistic innovation. It is not the least scriptural. As far as history is concernced, you should get your facts straight. Universal redemption has never been condemned by the Church. What was condemned is Universal salvation of man. There is a vast difference.
Actually, what was not accepted as well is limited atonement amoung other things much later by Patriarch Jeremiah in the late 16th century.
Posted By: J_Edwards

Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? - Fri Dec 31, 2004 7:59 PM

Quote
You assert without any texts. What specific texts would refute the texts that I showed in an earlier post?

The articles I gave you are full of Scripture. Scripture repeatedly qualifies those for whom Christ laid down His life in such a way as to point to a very definite limitation. Those for whom He suffered and died are variously called 'His sheep,' John 10:11, 15, 'His Church,' Acts 20:28; Eph. 5:25-27, 'His people,' Matt. 1:21, and 'the elect,' Rom. 8:32-35.

Quote
Limited atonement is a calvinistic innovation. It is not the least scriptural.

Please offer some Scriptural support for your assertion??? Please “exegete” ONE Scripture (any ONE) that supports unlimited atonement???

Quote
As far as history is concernced, you should get your facts straight. Universal redemption has never been condemned by the Church. What was condemned is Universal salvation of man. There is a vast difference.
Actually, what was not accepted as well is limited atonement amoung other things much later by Patriarch Jeremiah in the late 16th century.

I guess it needs to be determined what I meant by the phase “the” Church. (NOTE: I did not say “a” church like the RCC, or like that of the Arminians, but “the” Church, referring to one that believes in correct doctrine—i.e. not those apostate in doctrine.).

Hmmm…. did Patriarch Jeremiah live before Augustine? Of course, we could go back to the Apostle Paul who to my knowledge (1) taught Church doctrine (2) taught limited atonement (Rom 9).

Please give us (a) a dictionary or systematic theology reference, and (b) a definition to what you mean by (1) Universal redemption, and (2) Universal salvation??? TMU many use these terms as follows: Universal Redemption, meaning a bringing of Adam and his race back again to the probationary state in which Adam was when he sinned and Universal Salvation (perhaps first expounded by Origen) holds that all entities are subject to eventual salvation. Both are unbiblical.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? - Fri Dec 31, 2004 9:39 PM

J Edwards,

Quote
The articles I gave you are full of the Scriptures. Scripture repeatedly qualifies those for whom Christ laid down His life in such a way as to point to a very definite limitation. Those for whom He suffered and died are variously called 'His sheep,' John 10:11, 15, 'His Church,' Acts 20:28; Eph. 5:25-27, 'His people,' Matt. 1:21, and 'the elect,' Rom. 8:32-35."


These are all referencing the purpose of the redemptive work of Christ. Again, one must go back to the beginning. The Creation and fall and result. Adam was created good, he was neither mortal nor immortal. He lived a life in communion with God. He was created in God's image in the Likeness of Him. Man in this Image is free, communal, and distinctive. God created man a free moral agent. One who could love and obey Him freely, without compulsion, force, or any other restriction. We also know that from the beginning we were predestined to be conformed to His Image. That is what Adam was in the process of doing when he sinned.
He sinned thus plunging man and the universe into death and corruption. The judgement against Adam was death. Death thus reigns for all mankind. We inherit this judgement. Adam also died instantly. Because he now exhibited the results of death, thus sin, the communion he had with God was also lost. There was nothing inherently wrong with His walk with God. It was that it was no longer possible. Man was now on a trek of annihilation. Physical death, is the separation of body and soul. Man was not created to be mortal but immortal. If man is dead, and no longer able to commune with God, his created purpose, upon his physical death, would be eternally separated from God. We know this as well from the fact that God evicted Adam from the Garden so that he did not have access to the Tree of Life which, if he partook of it now, would guarantee that annihilation. Eternally in a death state and void God's creation.

Christ was the answer as He had promised Adam right from the beginning. Christ would overcome the judgement of Adam for all of mankind. For the universe. It is all part of God's creation which fell under the judgement of Adam.

Christ overcame death so that mankind could be freed from the bondage of death and sin. The death of Adam was reversed, Christ brought Life to the universe. That was the primary work of Christ. This was done in order that God might once again have communion with man. The world was reconciled to God by Christ's victory on the Cross. He put the universe in a right relationship, He (God) justified the universe through through Christ's work.

So far we have spoken of redemption. Now man is able to again walk with God. God redeems mankind so that He is able to call ALL men to himself. Every man must answer to God's call. There is no passivity here. One must either accept Christ or reject Him. There is no gray area. When we accept Him by faith we enter into His Kingdom through baptism which is repentance and the forgiveness of sins. This forgiveness was made possible only because of Christ's atonement on the cross. A secondary gift for those who would accept Him. Sin was not eradicated, man's sinful nature was not done away with, we still live in a sinful environment, and thus to stay in communion, we must seek forgiveness of our sins. Sin still separates us from God as it did Adam. We chose whether we will love and obey willingly or reject Him freely. As long as we remain IN Christ there is no condemnation IN Christ. Those that believe not have already been condemned.
The rest of the NT is about remaining faithful, running the course, enduring to the end.
If we fail, we will fall under condemnation as well. The atonement removed the penalty of those sins, but only if we seek forgiveness.

No place in scripture will you find any limitation on the redemptive work of Christ. Never does it say that He came to save some of the lost. He came to save the lost. Does that mean only some or all? If some, then some are not lost. He also came to save sinners to repentance. For you there would of necessity be some who are not sinners.

He redeemed mankind so that all men could be called to repentance. It never says that some will be called to repentance. He also states that He desires that all be saved. For this reason He redeemed all men, otherwise God is lying to us for He really only came to save some and really only desires that some be saved.

God does not really love mankind. God is not really love. He loves only some and is willing to let the rest of His creation to become annihilated, including the physical universe. You then will have a problem with His second coming and the establishment of a New Heaven and New Earth. This one has already been redeemed, just needs purification.

I might also add this question? Do you believe in the Incarnation of Christ?

Quote
but “the” Church, referring to one that believes in correct doctrine
by scriptural definition, the Church is Christ. So I would assume that He believes in correct doctrine. However, that Church is ontological, is an organic entity and has a concrete reality to it. In other words, man is not a spiritual being and exists in this world. The Church cannot be apostate ever. Man, as members of Christ's body can become apostate, as history has very aptly shown.

Quote
Hmmm…. did Patriarch Jeremiah live before Augustine? Of course, we could go back to the Apostle Paul who to my knowledge (1) taught Church doctrine (2) taught limited atonement (Rom 9).
Not unless Augustine lived in the 16th century. Yes, Paul not only taught it, but gave it as an instrument of Christ via the Holy Spirit. However, limited atonement was never one of them but you can try to show that he did.
Roman 9 has absolutely nothing but universal redemption. So much so, that not only Jews but the Gospel is also going to be for the Gentiles. It does not say some Gentiles.

Vs 30-33 the way of salvation is faith, has always been faith in the OT and the NT. To everyone who believes. Chapter 10:4 reemphasizes this again. You will find no limited redemption or atonement in scripture.
Posted By: J_Edwards

Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? - Fri Dec 31, 2004 10:57 PM

Quote
Adam was created good, he was neither mortal nor immortal.

What was he then? Did the 2nd man Adam become like the 1st man Adam—neither mortal or immortal?

Quote
Man was not created to be mortal but immortal.

But, you said above that ADAM was neither?

Quote
Christ was the answer as He had promised Adam right from the beginning. Christ would overcome the judgement of Adam for all of mankind… The death of Adam was reversed, Christ brought Life to the universe…. The world was reconciled to God by Christ's victory on the Cross. He put the universe in a right relationship, He (God) justified the universe through through Christ's work.

You have yet to “exegete” a SINGLE Scripture to prove this assertion. Just because you say it does not make it true??? Please show me from the Scripture and its proper interpretation???

Quote
As long as we remain IN Christ there is no condemnation IN Christ. Those that believe not have already been condemned. The rest of the NT is about remaining faithful, running the course, enduring to the end. If we fail, we will fall under condemnation as well. The atonement removed the penalty of those sins, but only if we seek forgiveness.

So, you do NOT believe in the Perseverance of the Saints???

Quote
He redeemed mankind so that all men could be called to repentance.

If they are already redeemed, then why do they need to repent?

Quote
God does not really love mankind. God is not really love.

So, now you out rightly deny the Scripture again: 1 John 4:8 The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love.

So many errors, so little time. Someone else I am sure will jump in and identify so many others. What kind of Church do you attend (name, denomination, website) or do you not attend Church at all?
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? - Sat Jan 01, 2005 2:04 AM

J Edwards,

Quote
What was he then? Did the 2nd man Adam become like the 1st man Adam—neither mortal or immortal?
No, not like he was created, but like he fell. Christ is the only one who is able to give Life again. Man could never redeem himself. In order to do so, he would need to live a perfect sinless life. That is the whole issue of why Christ did it for us. That all we need to do is accept this Work by faith. Christ did it all for us.

Quote
But, you said above that ADAM was neither?
Precisely. that was the work that man was to fulfill and accomplish as King and Priest of God's creation. That man would share in the Divine, be conformed to God, for us it has become conformed to Christ, who is the perfect Image of the Father. Man would have attained immortality as his reward. Since the first Adam failied, Christ accomplished this for mankind with His redemption through the Incarnation.

Quote
You have yet to “exegete” a SINGLE Scripture to prove this assertion. Just because you say it does not make it true??? Please show me from the Scripture and its proper interpretation???
I have already given you 10 texts that attest to the universal redemption by Christ. But...
Let's repeat to clarify: II Cor 5:14-19. vs 14 IF One died for all, then all died. To not be universal, there must be some who have not died. vs 15 He died for all so that we could live IN Him. Christ died for all, gave life to all, in order that we (believers) could live IN Him. In Him is our salvation.
Then dropping down to vs 19 Christ was reconciling the world to Himself. Not imputing their tresspasses or sins against them. Universal atonement. Then vs 20 shows that man must be reconciled to God. Man does this by accepting His Redemptive work by faith, repents, is baptised which is partly, the forgiveness of sins.

Also, I Cor 15:20-22: These texts really need no exegesis. Quite plainly this says In Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. Universal redemption and immortality. Adam was the father of mortality and earthly life, Christ is the father of immortality and spiritual life.

Again, Romans 5:14-19 is saying the very same thing again. Here is it even more emphatic and shows the correlation of Christ's work which resulted in the justification of life. The free gift came to all men. Never does it ever even imply that it is partial, or selective, or limited or anything but universal.
To show that the universe itself was redeemed, Eph 1:10. Col 1: 15-20
All men will be called or drawn: John 12:32.
In addition: John 5:28-29, Acts 23:6 and Acts 24:15 clearly state that ALL shall be raised. Believers and unbelievers. ALL DEAD SHALL BE RAISED. You would of necessity need to show that either not all will be raised, or that only some died therefore all dead will be raised.

Quote
So, you do NOT believe in the Perseverance of the Saints???
Very probable not the same way you do. Under your view, Adam could not have ever sinned.

Quote
If they are already redeemed, then why do they need to repent?
They were redeemed for the purpose of Union with Christ. To enter into Union with Christ, repentance is a mandated requirement. Or, redemption is not the salvation of individual man.

Quote
So, now you out rightly deny the Scripture again: 1 John 4:8 The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love.
I can see why you have trouble understanding. That was a satirical remark based on your view of redemption. God loved mankind. Why would He not. He created us for a very specific purpose. That purpose was lost in the fall. Redemption was necessary, so that mankind could once again be in Union with Christ. Freely in Uniion with Christ as was Adam.

Quote
What kind of Church do you attend (name, denomination, website) or do you not attend Church at all?
The only one that counts. It is Christ's established Church here on earth, the one He instituted. The Church of One Faith, One Baptism, One Lord, The Apostolic Church embodied in the Orthodox Church today.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? - Sat Jan 01, 2005 3:09 AM

Welcome to the boards.

Redeem
REDEE'M, v.t. [L. redimo; red, re, and emo, to obtain or purchase.]
1. To purchase back; to ransom; to liberate or rescue from captivity or bondage, or from any obligation or liability to suffer or to be forfeited, by paying an equivalent; as, to redeem prisoners or captured goods; to redeem a pledge.
2. To repurchase what has been sold; to regain possession of a thing alienated, by repaying the value of it to the possessor.
3. To rescue; to recover; to deliver from.
4. To compensate; to make amends for.
5. To free by making atonement.
6. To pay the penalty of.
7. To save.
8. To perform what has been promised; to make good by performance. He has redeemed his pledge or promise.
9. In law, to recall an estate, or to obtain the right to re-enter upon a mortgaged estate by paying to the mortgagee his principal, interest, and expenses or costs.
10. In theology, to rescue and deliver from the bondage of sin and the penalties of God's violated law, by obedience and suffering in the place of the sinner, or by doing and suffering that which is accepted in lieu of the sinner's obedience.
11. In commerce, to purchase or pay the value in specie, of any promissory note, bill or other evidence of debt, given by the state, by a company or corporation, or by an individual. The credit of a state, a banking company or individuals, is good when they can redeem all their stock, notes or bills, at par.

Salvation
SALVA'TION, n. [L. salvo, to save.]
1. The act of saving; preservation from destruction, danger or great calamity.
2. Appropriately in theology, the redemption of man from the bondage of sin and liability to eternal death, and the conferring on him everlasting happiness. This is the great salvation.
3. Deliverance from enemies; victory. Exo 14.
4. Remission of sins, or saving graces. Luke 19.
5. The author of man's salvation. Psa 27.

Quote
Man could never redeem himself. In order to do so, he would need to live a perfect sinless life. That is the whole issue of why Christ did it for us. That all we need to do is accept this Work by faith. Christ did it all for us.


According to the definition above, you do not believe Christ actually redeemed or saved anybody. 7. To save. Christs death only made salvation possible. It actually secured the salvation of none, only making all men salvable. The early church dismissed this at the Council of Orange. The church has historically upheld Total Depravity, even after Christs death. Your last sentence shows you uphold some form of pelagian soteriology, which is heresy.

Quote
Man would have attained immortality as his reward. Since the first Adam failied, Christ accomplished this for mankind with His redemption through the Incarnation.


I think you are either a universalist or confused. 6. To pay the penalty of. According to your definition of redemption Christs death could not have been a vicarious sacrifice for sin. Mans reward? For what work? Surely you don't uphold a synergistic salvation.

Quote
Then dropping down to vs 19 Christ was reconciling the world to Himself. Not imputing their tresspasses or sins against them. Universal atonement. Then vs 20 shows that man must be reconciled to God. Man does this by accepting His Redemptive work by faith, repents, is baptised which is partly, the forgiveness of sins.


As shown already, your definitions of redeemed, atonement, and redemption are inaccurate. So allow me to ask a question. Was the death of Christ a vicarious sacrifice for sin?

Quote
God loved mankind. Why would He not. He created us for a very specific purpose. That purpose was lost in the fall. Redemption was necessary, so that mankind could once again be in Union with Christ.


Did Gods first plan fail? What would that say of Gods omnipotence? I have heard this belief offered at bible college. I couldn't believe God would fail.

Quote
It is Christ's established Church here on earth, the one He instituted. The Church of One Faith, One Baptism, One Lord, The Apostolic Church embodied in the Orthodox Church today.


That sure explains it. If your pastor teaches the same things you are espousing here, you need to find a new church.

Could you tell me how many different contextual meanings for world and all there are in those passages you offered? More than one and almost none are all absolutely. In fact, most alls and worlds and everybody's aren't universally inclusive. I am going to post some scriptures that show a limited scope of atonement.

Quote

Psa 55:16 As for me, I will call upon God; and the LORD shall save me.

Isa 53:12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

Mat 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

Joh 10:14-15 I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.

Tit 1:1 Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness;

underlines mine


The real starting point for understanding Christs death is what its purpose was. That purpose could not fail.


God bless,

william
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? - Sat Jan 01, 2005 5:10 AM

Averagefellar,

Quote
According to the definition above, you do not believe Christ actually redeemed or saved anybody. 7. To save. Christs death only made salvation possible. It actually secured the salvation of none, only making all men salvable. The early church dismissed this at the Council of Orange. The church has historically upheld Total Depravity, even after Christs death. Your last sentence shows you uphold some form of pelagian soteriology, which is heresy.


By your long examples of what redemption means is precisely what Christ did in fact accomplish. There is absolutely no possibility involved at all. He saved everyone from death and destruction. In fact, as I pointed out, His universe, His creation. It was done to overcome the fall. You apparently have some other definition of the fall if Christ did not overcome the fall. The fall needed to be corrected in order for man to have Union or communion with Christ (God). this Union, the salvation of man is what man was created to do. It did not need correction. It did need a lot of additional gifts which were provided for by Christ to strengthen the believer in His communion with God. But Christ did not accomplish that for which man was created, His Union with Him. The Early Church never dismissed this view. The Council of Orange, actually the Second Council of Orange in 529 is a western local council not an ecumenical council. It was expressly the refutation of Pelagius by Augustine and the fact that man did not inherit any sin from Adam. Man did not need God's grace. Christ was just a good man, lived a sinless life, was a good example, thus any man could follow suit. The Early Church, as a Church, shied away from Augustine for the reason that much of what he stated was put to strongly just to make a point against Pelagius. The Church has never upheld the concept of total depravity. That is a western view and became, as did most of the other Augustinian views the bedrock of Catholicism and the reformers.
I don't think you clearly understand just what Pelagianism actually consists of. The Church has condemned Pelagianism. But not all of what he believed, nor wrote is Pelagianism, just as with all the other heretics. J Edwards thinks that the Church also condemned universalism. It did, but Universalism as any false teaching has part truth within it. What was condemned was the universal salvation of man, not the redemptive portion. Most false teachings have some element of Truth in them.

Quote
I think you are either a universalist or confused. 6. To pay the penalty of. According to your definition of redemption Christs death could not have been a vicarious sacrifice for sin. Mans reward? For what work? Surely you don't uphold a synergistic salvation.

Again, you also do not really understand Universalism. I would say you are the one confused.
It actually freed mankind from two deaths. From the judgemeent of Adam and the consequences our our sins, which is spiritual death. So therefore, His death was surely a vicarious sacrifice, we don't necessarily need to suffer death IF we believe and IF we endure.

The salvation of man is absolutely synergistic. Surprised that you even know and use the word correctly. It also cannot be any other way. If Christ also did this for man, then Christ must be held accountable to God, not man. Christ would be judged rather than the Judge at the Judgement seat. Adam would never have sinned in the first place. Adam, as a human being, is no different in essence from us, unless you believe so. I'm making a pure assumption that you believe he is as we are. God, in effect would be overruling the creation and purpose of man in that creation. Adam's walk with God was not the problem. The fact he sinned, thus making it impossible for any kind of union, communion or for man to fulfill his created purpose. Where in the Bible do you arrive at the fact that Christ accomplished man's intended created purpose?

Quote
As shown already, your definitions of redeemed, atonement, and redemption are inaccurate. So allow me to ask a question. Was the death of Christ a vicarious sacrifice for sin?
I just pointed that out to you. However, what does this even have to do with whether Christ's work was universal or particular? However, if Adam's judgement of death was not overcome first and foremost, the vicarious sacrifice for sin would be null and void in eternity. We would have forgiveness in this life, but not even enjoy an eternity with Christ. Your emphasis is on sin only. Sin is not man's foremost problem. Death, physcial death is primary. It is what kept man separted from God, thus spiritual death as well. Christ corrected the first by overcoming it. His death also atoned for our sins by paying the penalty of those sins, which is eternal spritual death.
But that penalty was paid for all men. Not just a few. That some will not avail themselves of it, is man's free choice, created in God's image with a will. That will is what Adam used to reject God, same as man can do today, since we all have been freed from the bondage of Adams Judgement, Physcial death, and from our sins, our spiritual death, if we so chose. That is why those that do not believe have already been condemned. It is the believing which uncondemns us. John 3:18. John 3:16 also is opposed to your view. It is universal He came to save the world, not condemn it. Man condemns himself in his rejection of His saviour.

Quote
Did Gods first plan fail? What would that say of Gods omnipotence? I have heard this belief offered at bible college. I couldn't believe God would fail.
How could this even be considered God failing. He succeeded in such a way that He saved the world, He recreated the world through Christ. He put the world back into the correct relationship so man could do what His sovereign plan started in the beginning. God, in creating man with a free will, that is independent of God's will. Part of that Image in which we are created. Another part of man's essence is that he is a communal being. Ah, just as God is, and why we were created. God did not want robots that He manipulated, that He controlled, that He forced to love and obey Him. He risked His entire Divine plan on the fact that man was created with a will. A will that could in fact reject his creator. What happened? Man rejected his creator.
Where is scripture do we find that man's essence changed. That the purpose of man is changed? Why did God now want to overrule His sovereign plan and His purpose of creating man. Why must He now manipulate man, control man, lock man into an existance where man is not free to choose.
From your view, as I pointed out to J Edwards, your God cannot be a God of love. He is particular and even though He desires all men to be saved,. He actually does not save all, only some. Not only that but you seriously think that God somehow along the way changed His sovereign plan, which up to now, you have failed to show anywhere in scripture that it might be so.

Quote
That sure explains it. If your pastor teaches the same things you are espousing here, you need to find a new church.
Obviously, you believe that there are several ways to Christ. My pastor, teacher is none other than Christ. He is the Head of that Church. He has governed, protected, and preserved that Body from the Beginning. It is, after all, His Body. It is His Truth imparted to the Apostles and has been imparted to believers ever since. Why in the world would I ever depart from the One True Faith, the One True Church, Christ.

Quote
Could you tell me how many different contextual meanings for world and all there are in those passages you offered? More than one and almost none are all absolutely. In fact, most alls and worlds and everybody's aren't universally inclusive. I am going to post some scriptures that show a limited scope of atonement.


Absolutely none. They stand as written and meant.
None of your underlined phrases restrict atonement. The first one is the same as that of Romans 5:15-16. Adams death was the result of one sin, Christ redemption covers many sins. The many does not refer to individuals.

Matt 1:21 - is referencing the salvation of man. Those that will accept Him by faith. It is those that He will save from their sins. How, because by repentance they enter into Union with Christ. This is possible only because of the atonement which is still universal. This does not restrict the effect of the atonement.

John 10: 14-15 He is addressing those who will choose Him. It is not referencing the atonement directly, only that there will be some who will choose Christ. God will call all men. The Holy Spirit will be poured out upon all men. Joel 2:28, Acts 2:16ff.

Titus 1:1 is very specifically referencing those that believe and become God's elect. Those that the Holy Spirit will empower to be conformed to the Image of His Dear Son. Romans 8:29. Phil 3:21

I don't see any restriction or even the mention of atonement in these verses.

Quote
The real starting point for understanding Christs death is what its purpose was. That purpose could not fail.
Quite correct. It has not failed. So why do you believe in a limited work of Christ? Why do you believe God changes, in that He changed His plan is midstream somewhere, which you have failed to show.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? - Sat Jan 01, 2005 5:43 AM

Quote
It actually freed mankind from two deaths. From the judgemeent of Adam and the consequences our our sins, which is spiritual death. So therefore, His death was surely a vicarious sacrifice, we don't necessarily need to suffer death IF we believe and IF we endure.


The IF creates an inconsistency. Did Christ save all humans or not?

Quote
But that penalty was paid for all men. Not just a few.


Then by what sin are men yet condemned?

Quote
Surprised that you even know and use the word correctly.


Sarcasm noted. I'll ask you to cease. I took Soteriology101 at a pelagian-credo college. I understand your heresy.

Quote
Quite correct. It has not failed. So why do you believe in a limited work of Christ? Why do you believe God changes, in that He changed His plan is midstream somewhere, which you have failed to show.


I don't. I totally believe Jesus saved all He intended to. Your lack of contextual analysis noted also. Here are a couple of links to help you see your error,

Owen on John 3:16

Engelsma on John 3:16

Boettner on Limited Atonement

Dabney on the Nature of the Atonement

Quote
Obviously, you believe that there are several ways to Christ.


I'll ask you to support that claim by quoting me.


God bless,

william
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? - Sat Jan 01, 2005 9:34 AM

Hey sojourner, let me help you out with the scriptures you graciously commented on. And it does seem that you need help. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bananas.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bananas.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bananas.gif" alt="" />

On 2 Cor. 5:14-19 you said "To not be universal, there must be some who have not died." Correctamundo my friend. The "all" in verse 14 refers to all of us who died in Christ and now live in him. So obviously not all have died.

In 1 Cor 15:20-22 paul is clearly talking about BELIEVERS solidarity with adam (the first man) and Christ (the last man). In verse 20 paul mentions the firstfruits and is showing that because Christ, our representative, was the first to rise from the dead (acts 26:23) and it is now possible for the resurrection of believers. In verse 21 For as by a man (adam) came death, by a man(christ) has come also the resurrection of the dead. The resurrection of believers. In verse 22 it would be safe to say all (everyone) died in adam but the "all" paul uses is strictly all believers. Compare this to Rom 5:17-19.

In Rom 5:14-19 i would again encourage you to look at the context and who paul is speaking to. In this context paul is comparing adams disobedience with Christs obedience to God. As we see "Therefore" in verse 12 we know that this comparison relates to the preceding text about the benefits that come to those who put their faith in Chirst. And as i said before although it would be safe to say that death came to all men "all human beings", paul is using this in the limited sense to all who are in Christ. He had in mind those who were effected by adams sin and were ultimmately redeemed by Christ as we can see in verse 10 "when we were Gods enemies."

Eph. 1:10 does not teach a universal redemption, but Christs reign over all things.

In john 12:32 the "all" that is used here is used in a different way then we have seen earlyer. The "all" refers to "all kinds of", not all without distinction; see 1 tim 6:10 where the same greek word is translated "all kinds of".
Look also at john 6:44, if the "all" here refers to every individual then it would be logical to say that every individual will come to Jesus and will rise on the last day. That obviously is not the case

John 5:28-29 does teach that everyone will be raised but like the WCF says, not all will be raised to honour. WCF 32.3 "The bodies of the unjust shall, by the power of Christ, be raised to dishonour: the bodies of the just, by His Spirit, unto honour; and be made conformable to His own glorious body."

The same goes for Acts 23:6 and Acts 24:15. We do not deny a resurection.

I would urge you to look at <font size="4">context</font>. It would be safe to say that salvation comes by giving away everything that i own, if i ignored context.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? - Sat Jan 01, 2005 1:17 PM

averagefellar,

Quote
The IF creates an inconsistency. Did Christ save all humans or not?
He saved every single human being who ever lived from death and corruption. The salvation of individual man is man's walk with God. If you can show that God was actually doing the walk of Adam then your view would prevail. This also makes God the author of sin then, and also the author of your sin today. If you cannot control yourself and your choices of whom you will serve, then God becomes the active agent of man. Why would man be judged on what God does and not himself.
I would say you have a monster of a contradiction to iron out.

Quote
Then by what sin are men yet condemned?
The very same one of Adam. Sin separates us from God. If we permit sin to rule, to overrule the spirit, then we become faithless, and sin will separate us, unless we seek forgiveness.

Quote
Sarcasm noted. I'll ask you to cease. I took Soteriology101 at a pelagian-credo college. I understand your heresy.
Then you should understand Pelagianism much better than you apparently do.

Quote
I don't. I totally believe Jesus saved all He intended to. Your lack of contextual analysis noted also. Here are a couple of links to help you see your error,
None of their views can be traced to the Apostles. They all begin with the novelty of the Reformation. A novelty that has exploded into so many views it is very difficult to keep up. Yet, the Church, has for 2000 years believed, taught and practiced the Gospel of Christ as given from the beginning. The reformation is still going strong after almost 500 years. It is very hard for me to imagine that God gave us a Gospel that constantly changes from believer to believer. I think there is some serious error on your methodology.


Quote
I'll ask you to support that claim by quoting me.

here it is....
Quote

That sure explains it. If your pastor teaches the same things you are espousing here, you need to find a new church.
By scriptural definition, Christ is the Church. I gave you that definition and you want me to change churches like protestants do. Find a new way to Christ. One that is more palatable, one to suit ones liking. That can only be the outcome of your remark based on scripture and the historical result of each man for himself who each has special powers and revelation that they can actually interpret from only a partial Truth. Amazing what logic, reason, and literary criticism can do. Not only that, but totally ignore the admonition of Scripture that man is not his own interpreter.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? - Sat Jan 01, 2005 2:00 PM

Quote
He saved every single human being who ever lived from death and corruption.


I'm sorry, universalism is heresy.

Quote
Then you should understand Pelagianism much better than you apparently do.


Show me where I err. I'm sorry. Your quote you provided from me says nothing of my believing in two ways to God. I think your stay here will be short if you continue to misrepresent calvinism and lie about our words.

Quote
None of their views can be traced to the Apostles. They all begin with the novelty of the Reformation.


I'm going to prve this wrong and the next time you post it, I'll simply call it a false report.

"We confess the election to life and the predestination of the wicked to damnation." Council of Valence, Mansi, 15:4

"He fulfills what he wills, properly using even evil things as if the very best to the damnation of those whom he has justly predestined to punishment." Augustine, Enchridion 26 {100} (FC 3:454; PL 40.279)

"Predestination is twofold: either of the elect to rest or of the reprobate to death" Isidore of Seville, Sententiarium Libri tres 2.6 (PL 83.606)

"It belongs to God's justice that he divides, and to his power that he divides according to his will" Ambrose, Letter 20 (FC 26:108)

"Paul is here attributing to the Holy Spirit what he earlier attributed to all three persons. Because they are of one nature and power, the Three do what the One does. There is only one God, whose grace is distributed to individuals as he wishes, not according to the merits of any particular person but for the upbuilding of his church. All those things which the world wants to imitate but cannot, because it is carnal, may be seen in the church, which is the house of God, where they are granted by the gift and instruction of the Holy Spirit." Ambrosiaster; Paul's Epistles (CSEL 81.135)

"Whosoever will candidly consider each particular, will recognize the greatness of the gifts which were given by him. For from him have sprung the priests and all the Levites who minister at the altar of God. >From him also our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh. From him kings, princes, and rulers of the race of Judah. Nor are his other tribes in small glory, inasmuch as God had promised, "Thy seed shall be as the stars of heaven." All these, therefore, were highly honored, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen." Clement of Rome, First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, 32 (ANF1 I, p. 13)


God bless,

william
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? - Sat Jan 01, 2005 2:17 PM

Soli Deo Gloria,

Quote
On 2 Cor. 5:14-19 you said "To not be universal, there must be some who have not died." Correctamundo my friend. The "all" in verse 14 refers to all of us who died in Christ and now live in him. So obviously not all have died.


Well, then you created a problem and a massive contradictionl. Vs 15 makes a separation from the all to the particular. So, now what do you do. Not all of your "who died in Christ" must still choose Christ. Some obviously do not. Also, a much bigger contradiction... how do you account that unbelievers will be raised in the last day, if Christ did not give them life. Do you just ignore that fact? You have God destroying part of His creation, at that, His highest created being, man.
Furthermore, can you show historically that the Holy Spirit actually preserved this teaching through the ages. That we actually had believers from Christ to the 16th century. Personally, I don't ever recall this teaching in my protestant days. This must be one of those very personal beliefs, not universal, like salvation was supposed to be. See Jude 3.

Quote
In 1 Cor 15:20-22 paul is clearly talking about BELIEVERS solidarity with adam (the first man) and Christ (the last man). In verse 20 paul mentions the firstfruits and is showing that because Christ, our representative, was the first to rise from the dead (acts 26:23) and it is now possible for the resurrection of believers. In verse 21 For as by a man (adam) came death, by a man(christ) has come also the resurrection of the dead. The resurrection of believers. In verse 22 it would be safe to say all (everyone) died in adam but the "all" paul uses is strictly all believers. Compare this to Rom 5:17-19.


Really, so there are some people who are actually still living from the time of creation. We know Adam was not one of them. It is not the solidarity of believers but the solidarity of mankind, creation actually. You still have the problem of unbelievers who will be resurrected.
Actually, I would really call you universalist in your view here. All men die, unless you can show as I just pointed out that some never die because not all have been effected by Adam. Only future believers are effected by your view. You have all die, thus all will be saved individually, that is what was condemned by the Church long ago.
Vs, 23 separates something, believers, I would say, from the all. Unless you ignore that little phrase, "who are Christ's". Or is this phrase been eliminated from your text?

Quote
In Rom 5:14-19 i would again encourage you to look at the context and who paul is speaking to. In this context paul is comparing adams disobedience with Christs obedience to God. As we see "Therefore" in verse 12 we know that this comparison relates to the preceding text about the benefits that come to those who put their faith in Chirst. And as i said before although it would be safe to say that death came to all men "all human beings", paul is using this in the limited sense to all who are in Christ. He had in mind those who were effected by adams sin and were ultimmately redeemed by Christ as we can see in verse 10 "when we were Gods enemies."

Your very words belie what you are attempting to prove. You state, "He had in mind those who were effe4cted by adams sin and were ultimately redeemd by Christ." That can only mean one thing, there were many who were not effected by Adams sin. Thus Christ did not need to redeem them. Really, "it would be safe to say that death came to all men ""all human beings"". My such a reality statement. You really think that there may be a possibility that some have not?
You use vs 10. This verse very clearly makes the separation as well. From universal redemption to those who are saved by His life. Life meaning resurrection. All men were reconciled in order that they may live IN Him. We do that by our choice. This is the Union of God with man. His created purpose.

Quote
Eph. 1:10 does not teach a universal redemption, but Christs reign over all things.
It actually teaches much more than that. He gathered all things and recreated them. He saved His universe. Mankind and the physical world. The only way you can wiggle out, it to show that He only saved some of the physical world as well. Then, if so, what part(s)?

Quote
In john 12:32 the "all" that is used here is used in a different way then we have seen earlyer. The "all" refers to "all kinds of", not all without distinction; see 1 tim 6:10 where the same greek word is translated "all kinds of".
Look also at john 6:44, if the "all" here refers to every individual then it would be logical to say that every individual will come to Jesus and will rise on the last day. That obviously is not the case
The context is different, but John 3:14 the context is the same. Here all those present could see the snake, and they needed to look upon the snake in order to be saved. Just by putting the snake up did not save all, but all did see or were drawn. Peoples actually here means both Jew and Gentile.

Quote
John 5:28-29 does teach that everyone will be raised but like the WCF says, not all will be raised to honour. WCF 32.3 "The bodies of the unjust shall, by the power of Christ, be raised to dishonour: the bodies of the just, by His Spirit, unto honour; and be made conformable to His own glorious body."
Well, that is a way to possibly solve your contradiction, but now, how does Christ raise all the dead, when He did not die for all to give life to all. Does He come again to die again for them. Or is this some extra miraculous event that is not really discribed in the Bible?
I might also, ask, if this be so, could He not have done this for the believers as well. Why die in the first place?
Also, why even raise them. Obviously, they are not saved. Must God somehow rub it in to them, raise them just to show them why they were not chosen as you probably would put it?

Quote
The same goes for Acts 23:6 and Acts 24:15. We do not deny a resurection.
If you read Paul in I Cor 15:12ff. The resurrection is tied to Christ. It affects all of mankind. That is because His redemption was universal. Life to all that we, believers, might live IN Him.

Quote
I would urge you to look at context. It would be safe to say that salvation comes by giving away everything that i own, if i ignored context.
I would strongly suggest it in your case. Not only the verse the the entirity of the Bible and its total message for mankind. Obviously you have ignored context. Because Christianity is precisely that. Giving up our all to be all in Christ. We give up our wills, so that they align with the will of the Father. Just as Christ did in the Garden of Gethsemene. It is also obvious that you do not need to do as the Rich Young Ruler.

I think you had better recheck the person who taught you this stuff. Clearly it is not following scripture even in the clear reading of it. You're trying to prove a supposition and must redefine terms, words, and ignore or explain away created contradictions.
However, if you can show somewhere through History that this teaching is visible and can be shown from the beginning to current history, you might have it right.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? - Sat Jan 01, 2005 5:04 PM

I agree that we should look at scripture in its entirety. In the OT on the day of atonement the sacrifice was made on behalf of Israel only. That was a type or foreshadowed the ultimate sacrifice,Christ, which was also for his chosen people. It is quite clear that you do not understand most biblical doctrines. You mentioned total depravity which i think is a good one to start with. Here is what i posted on another topic. You will see that in our unconverted state we are not redeemed or free to put our trust in Christ which is against our very nature.

"-Paul says we are "dead" Eph 2:1-3.

-Paul also says there is no one who searches after God or even does anything good. Rom 3:10-12

-Paul says were at enmity with God and cannot please him Rom 8:7-8

-Jesus even says we refuse to come to him. Jn 5:40

-Jesus says we are children of the devil and it is OUR will to do what he desires. John 8:44

How then can we be saved?

-John 8:36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.

- like SemperReformanda said only if God draws us or enables us. Jn 6:44,65

- John 1:12-13 says But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God13who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, BUT OF GOD.

-Phil 2:13 for it is God who works in you to
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? - Sat Jan 01, 2005 5:10 PM

Quote
sojourner said:

That is because His redemption was universal. Life to all that we, believers, might live IN Him.


Could you explain this universal redemption. I am sorry but i am still a bit confused. Does everyone end up with God in the end? Did Jesus do part of the work and we need to do the rest?
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? - Sat Jan 01, 2005 6:58 PM

Soli Deo Gloria,

Quote
It is quite clear that you do not understand most biblical doctrines.
What is clear that I do not understand the interpretation that you place on them over and above that which was given to us by the Holy Spirit and Christ to the Apostles.

Quote
"-Paul says we are "dead" Eph 2:1-3.
Yes, context is everything again. Don't pull this out and forget where he separates unbelievers from believers in the rest of the whole chapter. In fact, in light of your statement above, he includes Isreal as well. Christ broke down all walls between men and Himself. He did that in His redemptive work. All mankind.

Quote
-Paul also says there is no one who searches after God or even does anything good. Rom 3:10-12
He is answering the questions that are rasied by the hypothetical Judiazer he is addressing in the first 9 verses. Then He goes on to build the argument that it is not of our perfect righteousness which he just described as none, but the mercy of God saved us by Grace.
We do not need to fulfull the law perfectly because it is an impossibility, but Christ did so for us. We are saved by Grace through faith, not anything man can or could do. vs 27 summarizes what it has always been in OT and NT, the law of faith.

Quote
-Paul says were at enmity with God and cannot please him Rom 8:7-8
Yes, those who are not of God. If those who live by the spirit, those that chose to accept Christ, since with the redemption of man, all men are once again able to chose to walk with God. We must put the body to death and let the spirit rule. If we do so we walk in the light. If we chose not to so walk, then we are children of darkness. This choice is only possible because it was not limited to only some.

Quote
Jesus even says we refuse to come to him. Jn 5:40
No, not necessarily. He is speaking to the Pharisees. They do not come willingly so that they may have life. They rejected the God of Isreal, now they are rejecting the Messiah. There is nothing here to show either side of redemption, except that Christ clearly implies choice. Cannot be decreed election either.

Quote
-Jesus says we are children of the devil and it is OUR will to do what he desires. John 8:44

Precisely, it is our will that makes the difference between believer and unbeliver. If one is willing to believe, he is also willing to listen. Again, choice is spoken and implied. Choice is not even a possibility with limited redemption. Vs 51 is also a choice, not decreed election or limited redemption.

Quote
-John 8:36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.
Yes, mankind has been set free. Free from the bondage of death and sin. Free as in the pre-Adamic state, that man can once again chose, as did Adam, to either love and obey God or chose to reject Him. Man cannot be responsible for that simple decision unless God redeemed all of mankind so they can be held accountable.

Quote
like SemperReformanda said only if God draws us or enables us. Jn 6:44,65
Yes, except that calling is specifically in Jesus selecting the Apostles, whom He already knew by His foreknowledge they would believe. Peter bears this out in the following verses. Better verses which are in context to what we are speaking about is: II Pet 3:9, Rom 2:4, Mark 2:17, parallel Matt 9:13, Acts 17:30, It seems that God calls sinners to repentance. Now, either only a few are sinners, or God is in fact calling all because He freed all from the Bondage of death and sin. Or, you have a different meaning of the word "all".

Quote
- John 1:12-13 says But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God13who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, BUT OF GOD.
Yes, we could not even recieve Him nor believe Him except that He redeemed us. He redeemed all, so all could have that choice. A choice man will be held accountable for at the judgement. If this is not so, then either some men will not be judged, or man is not accountable and no one is judged. Some clear contradictins you are creating in attempting to skirt around universal redemption.

Quote
-Phil 2:13 for it is God who works in you to
It is all God, no matter how you look at it. However, God will not impose His will on man. Man must permit God to become part of His life. He choses to believe and since all men have that choice, then all must have been redeemed.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? - Sat Jan 01, 2005 7:08 PM

Soli Deo Gloria,

Quote
Could you explain this universal redemption. I am sorry but i am still a bit confused. Does everyone end up with God in the end? Did Jesus do part of the work and we need to do the rest?
No, we are not speaking of the universal salvation of individual man. We are talking about Christ correcting the fall. The fall of Adam, The judgement of Adam was Death. This death also resulted in spiritual separation or death. Christ overcome both for all men. Put man's nature back to the pre-Adamic state so that man could again chose life over death just as Adam did. Adam and we are not different creatures. He is a man, a human being created in the same essence as we are.

Mankind was restored in order that man could fulfill his rightful purpose of his creation. Part of that purpose was to be in communion with God. God gave man a free will to freely chose whether he would love and obey or reject. What comes after we become believers is this walk with God. It is our created purpose being fulfilled. That is why it is so incongruent to hear some of you say, Christ did it all. Man has no role in his salvation. Adam did, why not we. How are we different? You either make God change His sovereign plan or purpose of man's very existance.

Rather than give a discourse, if you have other questions, just ask.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? - Sat Jan 01, 2005 7:13 PM

Quote
God gave man a free will to freely chose whether he would love and obey or reject.


Scripture please?


God bless,

william
Posted By: J_Edwards

Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? - Sat Jan 01, 2005 9:02 PM

So how long have you been a universalist?

Which Church do you attend?

Where is the exegesis of Scripture I asked for before?
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? - Sun Jan 02, 2005 12:28 AM

averagefellar,

Quote
My statement: God gave man a free will to freely chose whether he would love and obey or reject..
your response: Scripture please?

There is no explicit scripture that states man has a will. However, it is implicit in the language of the Bible that man choses, choses whom he will serve. Adam (Eve) chose to accept Satan's temptation. Man in God's Image is free, communal and distinctive.
Christ in His incarnation assumed man's human nature and redeemed all of it and joined it to himself.

The understanding of what and the how of this mystery was outlined by Maximus the Confessor in his arguments against Nestorius and his view that Christ had only one will - His divine.

This is how Maximus explains it, In Christ's human nature which is consubstantial with all men, God humanly wills, decrees and perfectly fulfills the salvation of all men, for no human being is untouched by His Incarnation, and nothing is detracted from His sovereignty as God if individual persons choose not to accept salvation. Human nature is mans essence which is the same for all men, but the personhood is the use of that will for good or evil. Christ, being truly consubstantial with all men, truly died for all men, and thus His atoning Passion, Death and Resurrection are in no way limited.

If not all men rise with the second Adam then not all die with the first Adam. Or, there would of necessity be some men who are not affected by the consubstantiality of Christ's human nature. Since they are not in Him through His Incarnation, they would of necessity not be in Adam either. Not being in Adam they would have no need of Christ. This is the denial of ancestral sin which was condemned as Pelagianism.

Here is the result of your understanding of redemption.
If Christ's human nature is efficacious in salvation only for a number of elected individuals, thenb it would appear that Christ's humanity, insofar as it is efficacious for those individuals, is united with them not naturally but only by the object of their wills, since His human nature itself is not united with them. This union only in object of will between God and man in Christ is Nestorianism, which also was condemned by the Church.

Thus it seems that the human nature of such elected individuals gives nothing to election and Christ's human nature certainly does not, as it only affects the elected individuals. Human nature either has no will, which is a kind of Apollinarianism or it is merely ineffectual in salvation. Thus Christ's two human will decisions of salvation in His temptations and in the Garden are illusory and this is Docetism, which was also condemned.

It seems you lack a clear distinction between person and nature, lack of understanding between natural will and the mode of willing of the person.

In the protestant argument between Calvinism and Arminian view, the Calvinists views the will of humanity as set in sin from birth of the individual. The individual is guilty of God's wrath from infancy. The Armenian view maintains that the human will is only weakened, not totally depraved, only individuals can freely choose, therefore individuals can experience guilt and wrath. Thus Calvinism puts the will exclusively in the nature of man, the Armenian exclusively in the person.

Thus the Calvinist has the problem of being supralapsarian and threatens the sovereignty of God in that God becomes the author of sin and sustains man's sinful nature after acceptance as a believer . Fortunately, most do not hold to this view and thus Calvinism has changed and has become infralapsarian to get around this dilemma but only in regard to Adam, not the believer.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? - Sun Jan 02, 2005 12:41 AM

J Edwards,

Quote
So how long have you been a universalist?
Have never been one. Only by your misunderstanding which is your problem.

Quote
Which Church do you attend?
I thought I already stated that as well, but you may have missed that as well or just misunderstand that too. Orthodox.

Quote
Where is the exegesis of Scripture I asked for before?
It is up above somewhere. I did all ten texts that I had previously given to you and all the explanations preceding your original request touched on those ten. So you have them twice since I have been conversing with you.

Furthermore, Soli Deo Gloria, used the same texts to give her interpretation and I again spelled it out. That makes three times. How many times does it take to understand?????? Do you actually need it again????
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? - Sun Jan 02, 2005 1:11 AM

sojourner, first off im a guy. Understandable mistake. Nowhere in scripture does it teach that we can chose between good and evil. It is our nature to chose evil as i showed earlier. Unless you understand mans depravity, i personally will no long argue other biblical doctrines. You can garantee i will pray for you though. Maybe it would be best if you started another post on mans total depravity. Here are 2 short books you could read by aw pink.
http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Depravity/depravity.htm
http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Impotence/impotence.htm
Here is an article on this site about total depravity
http://www.the-highway.com/depravity_Boettner.html


BTW i am a supralapsarian. here is an article you could read defending it. http://www.5solas.org/media.php?id=553
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? - Sun Jan 02, 2005 2:23 AM

No scripture. Then I'll dismiss your assertion of free-will as unbiblical philosophy.


God bless,

william
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? - Sun Jan 02, 2005 3:19 AM

Soli Deo Gloria,

I do apologize regarding your name.
Now, regarding your comments, I understand Total Depravity. It totally denies the Incarnation of Christ in that He reconstituted man and His creation to overcome the fall. As I pointed out, the concept of limited redemption is alien to Scripture.

That you have chosen, using your free will, to believe as you do is up to you. I put my full Trust in Christ and His redeeming work that He did out of love to His creation, His entire creation. In reading just a bit regarding the view of supralapsarianism is close to being fatalistic as well, if it isn't.
In thinking about it, you have absolutely no assurance that you are even one of the elect, since you apparently do. I would be interested in how you can show from scripture that the verses typically used speaks to you in particular. I can see that it might be in theory or as a principle, but you cannot apply it personally. You can not know for a fact, until judgement if you are elect.
Also, if your God is a God of supralapsarianism, the creator of evil, sin as well as good, why make his creation suffer, for what purpose. If suffering, pain, disease, even death, an unnatural condition for man is simply to glorify Himself, then your God could hardly be love as his essence. Love is not an attribute but part of His essence. I would think you and others who accept this view have a lot of justification to make it fit Scripture.
You asked me to clarify universal redemption. You wondered if it meant universal salvation of man. Thinking on it now, why would it matter in your view. It is fatalistic. It matters not to man, he has absolutely nothing, no purpose in creation accept to be manipulated by God whereby some will be saved, whatever that really means and some lost, actaully all decreed to that positon.
However, so be it. You can comment if you will. It will not change my positoin. I will not give up the pearl of Great Price, Christ, lover of mankind.

Come to think about it, one last comment.
If I chose now to change my belief, is it I really or God manipulating me forcing me to do so. And if I did somehow change, which postion was correct for eternity. See the diabolical conundrum your view puts forth.
Again, it really does not matter what I believe, nor what you believe, it is fixed by decree before creation that I would so believe. Even if I wanted to believe Total Depravity it would be an impossibility for me to chose.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? - Sun Jan 02, 2005 3:37 AM

Quote
As I pointed out, the concept of limited redemption is alien to Scripture.


Quote
That you have chosen, using your free will,


Free-will is alien to scripture.

Quote
However, so be it. You can comment if you will. It will not change my positoin. I will not give up the pearl of Great Price, Christ, lover of mankind.


I have no doubt of your desire to remain anti-biblical. Now I must ask your purpose here.

Quote
If I chose now to change my belief, is it I really or God manipulating me forcing me to do so.


I see you also do not understand calvinism.


God bless,

william
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? - Sun Jan 02, 2005 3:40 AM

averagefellar,

Quote
No scripture. Then I'll dismiss your assertion of free-will as unbiblical philosophy.

So you believe what,,,
There was no Incarnation?
Christ did not have a will, either human or divine?
Man is not created in God's Image?
Man is not unique among the created beasts?
If man does not have a will, then can you show from scripture that man is a robot just performing the whims of a God who yanks to and fro and has decreed every action you make from eternity as Soli Deo Gloria?
What is the purpose of man, that is all men, not just the saved? What is saved mean then?
What is the purpose of revelation? It serves no purpose if we as human beings have no personhood and really are none better than the beasts.
Why should I be outraged by wars, by the massive amount of killing of one human of another. It is all in the plan, decreed to be just so, Show me why this should not be fatalistic.
It is a form of pantheism which is the religious form of fatalism.
Me thinks it is a massive twisting of scripture
Just what do you believe?
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? - Sun Jan 02, 2005 3:48 AM

Quote
There was no Incarnation?
Christ did not have a will, either human or divine?
If man does not have a will...


I believe in the incarnation. I am a Christian.

I never stated anywhere that Christ did not have a will. Nor have I ever stated, anywhere, that man does not have a will. Man has a will. It is affected by his sinful nature and is not free.

I am definitely seeing a pattern of misrepresentation concerning what calvinism teaches. I think you might want to study up a bit so you can at least discuss the real thing.


God bless,

william
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? - Sun Jan 02, 2005 4:18 AM

What also is apparent to me as I read this thread is there are two paradigms at work here.

If I believe God's salvation is open to anyone ( and in a universal way it is), and that the 'full number' of those who will accept salvation is yet to be determined ( i.e. man is still in control in some small modicum of who will be saved and who will not be saved because of his own free will).

If I believe the above, then Christs atonement is unlimited. It is unlimited in nature to extend to the last moment whomsoever will accept the call to repent and believe.

However if I believe that in eternity past God chose who would receive salvations gift and who would reject it, then the number is fixed, and unchangeable. The work on the cross could only be applied effectively to these 'elect of God'. The atonement is then Limited in nature, and can never have an effect on those who will reject God.

This thread will never resolve in the hearts and minds of those who reject Reformation thought, and accept Arminieistic interpretation of scripture.

that just my opinion of course.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? - Sun Jan 02, 2005 4:24 AM

averagefellar,

Quote
Free-will is alien to scripture.


So, first of all Christ had no will. I believe He is in Scripture, NO?

So , if it be so, how is this text interpreted if man has no will... Matt16:24.
There are some 200 or so verses that use this terminology. The clear implication that man choses, man desires, man abides, man does many things. So you say it is something else besides man's will, namely a decree from eternity that is implied here.

I would be interested in who taught this in the first generation past the disciples. If this were true, then their direct disciples would surely proclaim it as Truth. I might have missed it, but apparently you didn't. How about 4th century.
St Augustine believed man had a will. You take his teaching of predestination and total depravity but not the idea man has a will. Why not. Was he wrong with that aspect of his view?


Matthew 24:13 "But he who endures to the end shall be saved." Which word am i misinterpreting here if a will is not implied. Does" he who" really mean God will force me to endure or just how do you interpret this if man has no will.

You are right, I do not understand Calvinism. but I also know that there are probably several hundred versions of it, so who has Calvinism right, let alone Scripture as once given to the Apostles.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? - Sun Jan 02, 2005 4:28 AM

sojourner, apology accepted.
It is obvious that you do not understand Gods sovereignty. God does have a sovereign plan and has decreed everything that will come to pass. But that does not eliminate human responsibility, especially since that is clearly shown in scripture. I know that i am a sinner who deserves Gods wrath. God has graciously chosen to save me from sin, not because of anything God has seen in me but because it was his good pleasure. When God looks at me he sees me as righteous because Christ propitiated the wrath of God. I know this because i have my faith in Christ and live my life in gratitude. I agree that we need to make our calling and election sure and examine and test ourselves to make sure we are in the faith. A few ways of knowing... This is love for God: to obey his commands. Preserverence is a great way to prove our faith genuine, along with suffering and trials. Love your brothers. Live in godliness.
To merely know everything about God will not do, for even the demons believe and they shudder.

I do not believe God is the author of sin, like you have stated, in that he does not tempt anyone to sin and in him is no darkness. james 1:13; 1 john 1:5
But he DID create evil and darkness in the way that it is said in Isaiah 45:7.

You said "Even if I wanted to believe Total Depravity it would be an impossibility for me to chose"
It would not be impossible for you to choose to believe in total depravity for i choose to do things all of the time. Though it would be imposible for you to choose to put your trust in Christ since that is against your nature. But dont worry, God can fix that by making you a new creature. I would recommend getting down on your knees and pleading for mercy.

Another great book i would recomend very highly for you to read is aw pinks book called the sovereinty of God. If you are at all interested in what i believe or what the bible teaches about Gods sovereignty then it would do you good to read at least a few chapters in this book.

http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Sovereignty/sovereignty.htm
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? - Sun Jan 02, 2005 4:35 AM

Quote
I would be interested in who taught this in the first generation past the disciples. If this were true, then their direct disciples would surely proclaim it as Truth. I might have missed it, but apparently you didn't.


Yes, the apostles taught this in scripture. It is your faulty interpretation that is the problem. I gave some quotes from early writers upholding calvinism. However, I see no reason to believe everything, doctrinally, was settled prior to 200a.d., by matter of council. Scripture was finished, and we had the truth. However, definitions of the trinity, formation of a canon, and various other matters were still being dealt with. Your assertion that since nobody put forth calvinistic beliefs makes it false is itself a false claim. The claim that doctrine had to be settled by a specific date is also out of sync with church history.

Quote
So, first of all Christ had no will. I believe He is in Scripture, NO?


Yes, Christ is in scripture. Yes, Christ had a will, as well as a nature.


God bless,

william
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? - Sun Jan 02, 2005 4:42 AM

OK first off, you are totally misquoting and misunderstanding me when you say i think "that man is a robot just performing the whims of a God who yanks to and fro and has decreed every action you make from eternity"

I think you need to open up your bible and read the OT. See how God uses Nebuchadnezzar to discipline his people. Nebuchadnezzar is not a christian and yet in Jeremiah he is often called Gods servent. Look at Job and Josephs life along with everyone else in the old test. I bet you could name almost any book and i can show you Gods sovereignty. Read the bible and watch the whole plan of redemption unfold...all part of Gods plan.

And when did we ever say man did not have a will?

Please read our posts carefully. I agree with averagefellar when he says that you obviously do not understand calvinism.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? - Sun Jan 02, 2005 4:46 AM

Quote
sojourner said:
averagefellar,

The clear implication that man choses, man desires, man abides, man does many things.


We are not arguing that.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? - Sun Jan 02, 2005 5:06 AM

averagefellow,

Quote
I believe in the incarnation. I am a Christian.

I never stated anywhere that Christ did not have a will. Nor have I ever stated, anywhere, that man does not have a will. Man has a will. It is affected by his sinful nature and is not free


Yes, but now explain your understanding of the Incarnation.
Scripturally, it means that Christ assumed man's human nature and redeemed it. Redeemed it from the fall. Man's will is redeemed and is no longer bonded to death and sin.
So therefore man is free to chose. If you still deny man's free will, then you also deny the scripural definition of the Incarnation.

Man's sinful nature still possessed a will and a free will, that is independent of God's will. It is true that this will was clouded but never lost. This is quite evident that man in pre-Christ period of history did respond to God as we know in the OT. We also know that all men have this will because they naturally seek God. In their falleness, they set up gods to their liking, but always something or someone considered greater than they..

Quote
I am definitely seeing a pattern of misrepresentation concerning what calvinism teaches. I think you might want to study up a bit so you can at least discuss the real thing.


That is your job to better explain your view in opposition to the one I was presenting. If you don't explain your view, I can only assume what you believe.
But then I was not discussing Calvinism but Christianity, the Scriptural one, not the man-made one.
I might also add, that if I did read up on Calvinism, I would still not have it correct for everyone. Everyone seems to have slightly different understandings of it. As I already stated, there are Calvinists, then 4pt, 3pt etc. When there are over 40,000 different variations of protestantism one would have a very difficult time keeping up with all the nuances.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? - Sun Jan 02, 2005 5:20 AM

Quote
Man's will is redeemed and is no longer bonded to death and sin.
So therefore man is free to chose.


So man can choose not to die? Jesus spoke about mans ability.......

Quote

Mat 19:25-26 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved? But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

Joh 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

(KJV)


Quote
We also know that all men have this will because they naturally seek God.


Paul, the apostle says otherwise.......

Quote

Rom 3:10-11 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. (KJV)


Quote
When there are over 40,000 different variations of protestantism one would have a very difficult time keeping up with all the nuances.


Another false claim. I hope you actually offer some evidence for this claim. I'll offer some against it.......Roman delusions. I really think you should look into these things before you misrepresent them.


God bless,

william
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? - Sun Jan 02, 2005 5:52 AM

Soli Deo gloria,

I fully understand God's sovereignty but not your understanding of it. the following is a contradiction.

Quote
God does have a sovereign plan and has decreed everything that will come to pass. But that does not eliminate human responsibility, especially since that is clearly shown in scripture.
Yes, but how do you get around this contradiction. That man is responsible for acts that are deceed by God.
Simply, it is not in scripture. Prayer would be totally useless. God only acts through established created laws or decrees thus He could not possibly change or act directly with His creation which the Bible clearly teaches. Miracles are an impossibility as these are direct acts of God within His creation. This is a form of Deism, God is transcendent only.

Quote
Though it would be imposible for you to choose to put your trust in Christ since that is against your nature.
So my nature has a will which works great until I want to chose God. I can chose to do moral good and moral evil but I cannot chose God. Explain please scripturally., You also need to explain your understanding of the Incarnation as well.

Quote
But dont worry, God can fix that by making you a new creature. I would recommend getting down on your knees and pleading for mercy.
And just how does this align with the above. That is a free choice you just gave to me. On the other hand, I guess he does not need to answer if I am not the elect. But God also said that whosoever seeks Him He will in no way cast out. so you have another contradiction to deal with. Did God decree or did he not. He also did not really desire all men to be saved. Nor does He call all men to repentance, just some He leads, not all.

You have so many contradictions that just do not align with scripture let alone within your own understanding.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? - Sun Jan 02, 2005 6:23 AM

averagefellar,

Quote
Yes, the apostles taught this in scripture. It is your faulty interpretation that is the problem. I gave some quotes from early writers upholding calvinism. However, I see no reason to believe everything, doctrinally, was settled prior to 200a.d., by matter of council. Scripture was finished, and we had the truth. However, definitions of the trinity, formation of a canon, and various other matters were still being dealt with. Your assertion that since nobody put forth calvinistic beliefs makes it false is itself a false claim. The claim that doctrine had to be settled by a specific date is also out of sync with church history.

The Apostles did not teach limited atonement. That is the whole point. Nor total depravity, It has nothing to do with my interpretation. I would not attempt to interpret what the Holy Spirit has not only given once to all for all and has stated quite clearly that man should not interpret His Truth.
On the other hand why would it be necessary. He gave us All Truth and the Holy Spirit guards, protects and guides members of His Body in that Truth preserving it in that Body. of which He is Head. The fact that the Truth is consistant through history is the authentication of the work of the Holy Spirit.
The only Church Father you mentioned is Clement of Rome who was a disciple of both Peter and Paul, the 3rd Bishop of Rome and He taught universal redemption as your quote clearly stated.
So who taught total depravity and actually adopted it as doctrine. I'm not familiar enought with Roman Catholic theology but I know they accepted much of St Augustine. If not, it was first a doctrine, outside of a teaching, by the protestants with Calvin. Did Luther believe in total depravity as well? That hardly makes it Gospel from the beginning. Predestination is spoken of but dies not have the meaning you ascribe to it and it never is connected to election which is not taught either until Augustine and again not put into doctrine until the Protestant Reforrmation. Catholics do not believe in election.
Since Christianity has a 2000 year history there have been a lot of teachings. But teachings do not make doctrine. Most have been condenmned because they rarely follow the understanding of the faithful of the Truth once given.

A council does not develop doctrine. In all cases they show by the apophatic method what something is not based on the false teaching which prompted the council. Doctrine does not come from the Bible. Doctrine comes from and was given as the Truth that the Apostles delievered. The Bible recorded some of it, explained some, implied others. To understand the written portion one must have the whole, the Oral and the practice that was established even before the written came into being almost 25 years after the Ascension. We have plenty of early documents, including the Epistles of Clement, the Didache written in the first century, and many others that attest and validate the scriptures. Truth lies in the Church, The Body of Christ. I Tim 3:15.

Quote
The claim that doctrine had to be settled by a specific date is also out of sync with church history.
It was never a matter of being settled. They had it from the beginning. There is nothing in the Bible that they did not have from the beginning and understood it the same as the Church does today. That is what makes it Gospel. It is not a development thing, a deductionist method and surely not individual man determining for himself just what the Bible means in opposition to the way the Holy Spiirt works and in oppostion to the prohibition to private interpretation.. II Pet 1:20.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? - Sun Jan 02, 2005 7:17 AM

averagefellar,

{quote]So man can choose not to die? Jesus spoke about mans ability.......[/quote] Yes, man can chose to die or to live. What is your meaning of man's ability.....?
By accepting Christ man lives with Christ in eternity. Man rejects God, he lives in eternity but spiritually separated- death.
How does Matt 19:24 play into this, I assume something to do with ability. But explain, or do I assume again.

John 6:44, No problem here, as he calls all men to repentance. The Holy Spirit works in this world calling all men through many and various means, scripture, spouses, events, but God does not decide for man. God does not force evil or virtue in man. Man is free to choose.

Quote
My comment: We also know that all men have this will because they naturally seek God.
Your response: Paul, the apostle says otherwise.......
Actually that was a misspelling. It should be a god. but it is also true as man from the beginning must in some way answer to God in the measure of what was given to him. See Romans 1:18-21.

Quote
Another false claim. I hope you actually offer some evidence for this claim. I'll offer some against it.......Roman delusions. I really think you should look into these things before you misrepresent them.
You can check it in the World's Almanac. This was several years ago so I would imagine its much higher. They will tell you they cannot list all of them but give you the approximation. Knowing what is in my telephone book shows with a 200,000 population, the baptist seem to have it in spades, all of different groups - 48 general baptist and 25 members of the Southern Conference,plus 178 general churches, plus several churches in each of the more major denomoniations as Lutheran, Methodist, Episcopal etc. That is stunning that there are actually so many understandings of the Bible all from man's intriguing ability to attempt to interpret. And none agree on what it actually says. Just to put others into perspective, 12 Catholic and 3 Orthodox. Having lived in Chicago for a time, this check would prove interesting. It is a heavy Catholic city but given the population, it might be staggering. You spend so much time and effort in detemining truth, that if and when you find it, you may not have the chance to live it. After all, it is a lived phenonomon, not a knowledge thing which seems more agin to what is happening.
Protestantism is multiplying like an ameba. It will implode on itself if the proliferation of so-called truth keeps growing at it current rate. And believe it, as most will state, this is the work of the Holy Spirit????
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? - Sun Jan 02, 2005 12:56 PM

Quote
Yes, but how do you get around this contradiction. That man is responsible for acts that are deceed by God. Simply, it is not in scripture.


Quote

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;)

Act 2:22-23 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

Exo 4:21 And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go.

(KJV)


Quote
So my nature has a will which works great until I want to chose God. I can chose to do moral good and moral evil but I cannot chose God. Explain please scripturally.


Quote

1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Joh 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

(KJV)


Quote
That is a free choice you just gave to me. But God also said that whosoever seeks Him He will in no way cast out.


Once again, so you'll PLEASE stop misrpresenting, I believe people make choices. What did Paulm say in Romans 3 about seekers again?

Quote

Rom 3:10-11 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. (KJV)

underlines mine


Quote
You have so many contradictions that just do not align with scripture let alone within your own understanding.


I haven't seen you quote one passage and accurately interpret it.


God bless,

william
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? - Sun Jan 02, 2005 1:08 PM

Quote
Matt 19:24 play into this, I assume something to do with ability. But explain, or do I assume again.


Read it clearly. A merely possible salvation is no salvation.

Quote
John 6:44, No problem here, as he calls all men to repentance. The Holy Spirit works in this world calling all men through many and various means, scripture, spouses, events, but God does not decide for man. God does not force evil or virtue in man. Man is free to choose.


I am not sure you are reading my posts. I Haze asked for exegesis showing God "draws all humans once before. I don't think all the alls and worlds have the same contextual meaning. For you to force the same meaning on each passage is poor scholarship. In verse 44, what happens to those Christ draws? I have also repeatedly claimed that we do make decisions.

Quote
You can check it in the World's Almanac. This was several years ago so I would imagine its much higher. They will tell you they cannot list all of them but give you the approximation. Knowing what is in my telephone book shows with a 200,000 population, the baptist seem to have it in spades, all of different groups - 48 general baptist and 25 members of the Southern Conference,plus 178 general churches, plus several churches in each of the more major denomoniations as Lutheran, Methodist, Episcopal etc. That is stunning that there are actually so many understandings of the Bible all from man's intriguing ability to attempt to interpret. And none agree on what it actually says. Just to put others into perspective, 12 Catholic and 3 Orthodox. Having lived in Chicago for a time, this check would prove interesting. It is a heavy Catholic city but given the population, it might be staggering. You spend so much time and effort in detemining truth, that if and when you find it, you may not have the chance to live it. After all, it is a lived phenonomon, not a knowledge thing which seems more agin to what is happening.
Protestantism is multiplying like an ameba. It will implode on itself if the proliferation of so-called truth keeps growing at it current rate. And believe it, as most will state, this is the work of the Holy Spirit????


I know you are yammering now. That evidence doesn't even come close to your original claim, yet you choose to continue to put forth Romish lies. You really haven't brought anything new to this discussion and we dismiss Romes parrots as noisy birds.


God bless,

william
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? - Sun Jan 02, 2005 1:12 PM

Quote
Doctrine does not come from the Bible. Doctrine comes from and was given as the Truth that the Apostles delievered. The Bible recorded some of it, explained some, implied others. To understand the written portion one must have the whole, the Oral and the practice that was established even before the written came into being almost 25 years after the Ascension.


I know you'll tire of my asking, but, scripture please?


God bless,

william
Posted By: J_Edwards

Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? - Sun Jan 02, 2005 3:07 PM

Quote
I thought I already stated that as well, but you may have missed that as well or just misunderstand that too. Orthodox.

Orthodox WHAT? There is the OPC, there is the Orthodox Church or America, Greek Orthodox, The Christian Coptic Orthodox Church Of Egypt, etc.

Quote
It is up above somewhere. I did all ten texts that I had previously given to you and all the explanations preceding your original request touched on those ten. So you have them twice since I have been conversing with you.

That is not exegesis. Do you know what exegesis is?
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? - Sun Jan 02, 2005 4:34 PM

Quote
sojourner said:
St Augustine believed man had a will. You take his teaching of predestination and total depravity but not the idea man has a will. Why not. Was he wrong with that aspect of his view?


Augustine recanted free will in his treatise, De Praedestinatione:

Quote
I erred in this, that I held that the grace of God consists only in this, that God in the preaching of the truth reveals His will; but that our consenting to the preached Gospel is our own work, and is within our own powers... I erred when I said that it is within our own power to believe the Gospel and to will; but it is God's work to give to them that believe and will the power to effect something.


The Arminians deny total depravity, predestination, and the enslaved will. Would you consider their churches to be Orthodox?
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? - Sun Jan 02, 2005 9:09 PM

J Edwards,

Quote
Orthodox WHAT?
They are all listed on this site.
http://www.oca.org./pages/orth_chri/Orthodox-Churches/index.htm

Quote
That is not exegesis. Do you know what exegesis is?
That is the interpretation, the explanation of the texts. They have meant that for quite some time, say 2000 years. What do you want me to do, redefine them first so they match your interpretation?
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? - Sun Jan 02, 2005 9:19 PM

speratus,

Quote
Augustine recanted free will in his treatise, De Praedestinatione:

Thanks for the information. Another reason the Orthodox do not use Augustine. However, Roman Catholics took much of his writings, but apparently not his denial of free will.

Quote
The Arminians deny total depravity, predestination, and the enslaved will. Would you consider their churches to be Orthodox?
Not just on those three doctrines. Obviously, they are not, but that does not mean they could apply.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? - Sun Jan 02, 2005 9:26 PM

averagefellar,

Quote
I know you'll tire of my asking, but, scripture please?
The scripture was not written during this time. That is why you have so much trouble understanding something that is based on the whole, but itself is only part. You have thrown this portion out as unreliable because you lack faith that the Holy Spirit can actually do what He promised.
You just want the written portion, then deduce from it what you think something might mean. And we know how well that works.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? - Sun Jan 02, 2005 9:30 PM

Offer something besides sarcasm, please.


God bless,

william
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? - Sun Jan 02, 2005 9:35 PM

I really couldn't fathom any response from you.

Quote
You have thrown this portion out as unreliable because you lack faith that the Holy Spirit can actually do what He promised.


What have I thrown out? Quote me claiming I don't believe the Holy Spirit can accomplish His purpose? Indeed, I claim exactly the opposite of that, Jesus actually saved.


God bless,

william
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? - Sun Jan 02, 2005 10:18 PM

averagefeller,

Quote
I am not sure you are reading my posts. I Haze asked for exegesis showing God "draws all humans once before. I don't think all the alls and worlds have the same contextual meaning. For you to force the same meaning on each passage is poor scholarship. In verse 44, what happens to those Christ draws? I have also repeatedly claimed that we do make decisions.

Who needs scholarship. It was handed on a "silver plater" so to speak. The Holy Spirit imparted to the disciples ALL TRUTH, why must I even attempt to decipher, when the explanations have been in existance for 2000 years. I don't need to justify some man-made suppositions and try to make them fit my scholarship.
That you don't accept them, but rather must depend on your feeble mind to deduce and make up your own as you go is your choice.
The difference is you depend on yourself to arrive at truth. I depend on Christ through the Holy Spirit and accept by Faith what He has provided as His ONE plan of salvation.

Regarding your other questions: Man choses life or death as a result of the call of the Holy Spirit working on all of mankind. Of Course, all, in Acts 1:17 means "some" in your dictionary as in other places. Just so your grand scholorship can get scripture to align the way you want it.
Christianity does not come by scholarship. OH, can you give me scripture on that, please.

Quote
That evidence doesn't even come close to your original claim
That being I don't have an Almanac handy. It is not worth for me to go to the Library for you.
However, here is a statistic from the World Christian Encyclopedia:
"According to David Barrett et al, editors of the "World Christian Encyclopedia: A comparative survey of churches and religions - AD 30 to 2200," there are 34,000 separate Christian groups in the world today." I forgot to check the date on the Enc but it is probably several years old for sure based on its cover.

So, it may look like 40,000 might be somewhat understated. The problem is that Christ only established ONE, so we have a lot of immitation churches. Are there really that many doctrines, how could they possibly differ so much? I think this must be somewhat like the OT in Judges, where it says, Each did what was right in his own eyes.
I think you have a problem with your concept of scholarship.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? - Sun Jan 02, 2005 10:33 PM

averagefellar,

Quote
I haven't seen you quote one passage and accurately interpret it.

Obviously, how would anyone know what your personal gospel is in totality. All I know it is not close to the Gospel once given, Jude 3.
What chance would I have in getting it right with even a 1000 different understandings available, being on the conservative side. That number might be more palatable than the real number for you.

What is even more amazing is that of all those out there, you believe that only yours is right. I think that is also called arrogance and self-centeredness. But I give you credit for searching. Keep at, someday you will find it, and when you do, hopefully you will answer the Holy Spirit in the postive, as He is calling you to the fullness of the Gospel.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? - Sun Jan 02, 2005 11:27 PM

I am starting a new thread, Total Depravity with scriptural support. Feel free to post there. The discussion here has come down to you posting few scriptures and repeating your invalid claims of "once handed down", though you have not shown that anybody believed what you claim. Simply stating such means nothing.


God bless,

william
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? - Sun Jan 02, 2005 11:51 PM

I have been reading this thread , and it really is coming back to the issue of: free will/enslaved will.

Again I will state that Limited atonement can only be embraced by the person who believes that God in eternity past chose some for salvation, and others for damnation.

There has been the cry of " What are we robots then?" already in this thread and I am surprised no one has posted the scripture ( you may have, I have just been skimming through--).

First. I would think that there needs to be a definition of 'will' and 'agency'. These two words seem to be getting used quite interchangeably on this discussion.

Now in clear way scripture declares God's sovereignty and his sovereignty in 'choosing'

"Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens." Rom 9:18

Right after that verse comes the , what I call, Robot verse. Everyone always asks it when presented with this doctrine.

"You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?" Rom 9:19 NKJV

"You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?" Rom 9:19 NASB

"Well then, you might say, "Why does God blame people for not listening? Haven't they simply done what he made them do?" Rom 9:19 NLT

See how it clear it is, that even people in Pauls day asked the same question: WHy blame me me, why hold me accountable? I'm just doing what God made me do. I can't be held responible.

( This is usually natural mans reaction after he finds out he is no longer Invicta, or that he is no longer the Master and Commander of the far side of his soul).

I shall leave the reader to go and find out the next few verses. Since I am not in a pulpit, and since this is not a sermon, I can do that.

If after reading that passage, your knee jerk reaction is to say: "this whole passage deals with just Gods treatment of Israel".. then I would counsel you that there are other dispensational boards out there that are quite active.

Limited atonement can only be understood, and can only be embraced by someone who believes that God has elected some to salvation and eternity with him, and elected others to eternal damnation in hell. While I am beginning to believe that the cross brought some modicum of 'common grace' even to unbelievers, the aspect of the 'atonement' ( more of a legal, perhaps judicial (?) term---placing us in a good standing with God legally..) is only, and will only ever be limited in nature to thse whom he has chosen. The objects of his wrath will never and can never be 'atoned' with God. Therefore, it is LIMITED.

Of course thats also a point that my dad made at point. Either the points laid out in Calvins Institutes are taken as a whole, and you believe them.. or else you choose another system of thought. He'd sum it up by saying: "you pays your money and makes your choice" ( which was his way of trying to be cute about the whole thing). But there is within his statement some truth. Either it all fits together, or we toss it all out and we accept another system of interpretation.

Just posting yet another post of my own two copper coins.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? - Mon Jan 03, 2005 2:10 AM

How about the original understanding based on the original teaching of the Gospel.

Here are two articles, one on Free will and predestination
the other on Free will and determinism.
The second one is actually a debate, I believe from a forum with an Orthdox Priest and a Calvinist. So you should see th comparison easily.

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/exact_freewill.aspx

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/freewill.aspx
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? - Mon Jan 03, 2005 7:16 AM

I read themm.. how about we just do what Average fella proposed and use scripture.

Rom 9:14-26 ( it seems clear to me)

"14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! 15 For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion."* 16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth."* 18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.
19 You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?" 20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?" 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?
22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
25 As He says also in Hosea:


"I will call them My people, who were not My people,
And her beloved, who was not beloved."*
26 "And it shall come to pass in the place where it was said to them,
'You are not My people,'
There they shall be called sons of the living God."*
Posted By: J_Edwards

Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? - Mon Jan 03, 2005 11:23 AM

Quote
That is the interpretation, the explanation of the texts. They have meant that for quite some time, say 2000 years. What do you want me to do, redefine them first so they match your interpretation?

Dear sir your sarcasm is noted, but NO this is not what I mean. Exegesis is taking a Scripture or a group of Scripture and analyzing them from the original languages and determining what they mean within the context of which they are stated. Unfortunately, your "examination" of Scripture was not (1) from the original text, (2) is not translated within context, (3) is basically isogesis and not exegesis. Thus, far beyond what you insinuated, I desire you to exegete a selected Scripture or group of Scriptures so not to diminish the grammatical/historical hermeneutic. See here for more.
Posted By: J_Edwards

Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? - Mon Jan 03, 2005 1:06 PM

Quote
Who needs scholarship. It was handed on a "silver plater" so to speak. The Holy Spirit imparted to the disciples ALL TRUTH, why must I even attempt to decipher, when the explanations have been in existance for 2000 years. I don't need to justify some man-made suppositions and try to make them fit my scholarship. That you don't accept them, but rather must depend on your feeble mind to deduce and make up your own as you go is your choice. The difference is you depend on yourself to arrive at truth. I depend on Christ through the Holy Spirit and accept by Faith what He has provided as His ONE plan of salvation.

Actually, what you have written above is not true. First, who needs scholarship? Interesting you should say such a vain thing. Moses was trained in the Egyptian sect. He had a knowledge of how the Egyptian government worked, et. al. However, he was a chosen vessel of God’s design and with this “Egyptian” knowledge and the imparting/leadership of the Holy Spirit he delivered and guided the Israelites, et. al. God further developed and used Moses’ scholarship and leadership qualities to His own glory. What about Daniel? What court was he trained in? Did God use him? Paul was schooled, as was a Pharisee of the Pharisees. Because of God’s amazing grace, he understood the doctrines of the past and wrote against such things as Gnosticism, free-willy, and other false doctrines. Amazing, God choose a man with scholarship to be one of the greatest Apostles of all time. Yes, Paul did have the Holy Spirit! However, God used the training the Apostle accumulated throughout his life (by divine design) in order to use him for His glory. And of course, there is Christ who grew in wisdom and stature—did Jesus have any scholarship (Mark 1:22)? Far from God not using scholarship you will be hard pressed to find a “stupid” biblical figure in Scripture (save the reprobate). Our problem today is with individuals not using the proper hermeneutical tools to interpret Scripture and thus they fall into error upon error revealing their inability to properly know God and interpret His Word (2 Pet 3:16, ...they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction). While much scholarship is in error—not all is, and even that which “is” in error God can manifest and turn it for His glory! Your claim that God is not the God of scholarship is not biblical!

Second, you state, “The Holy Spirit imparted to the disciples ALL TRUTH, why must I even attempt to decipher.” Apparently, the Corinthians had the same mindset and were riddled with error! Though you claim not to decipher, yet we read posts in which you have “falsely” deciphered Scripture. You have deciphered in several ways—your using English, but the Bible is written in other languages, your using a theological system (false one, Arminian and heretical mindset), etc. So, the truth is that you do decipher. The truth is everyone reads “upon” the text—no one begins with a “blank slate” (tabula rasa) in interpretation. If one had a mere “blank slate” at salvation, then why would God’s Word tell you to be renewed in the spirit of your mind (Rom 12:1-2)? The reason why is that at salvation your mind is not yet godly—though it does begin then to seek God more fully. So, though a person at salvation has the Holy Spirit to lead and guide him, the Holy Spirit uses tools to do such with—tools He has put within Christendom to more fully know Him.

The question is how do you decipher? How are you going to read and interpret the text? To be renewed in the Spirit of your mind means more than just reading a few verses, seeing which words in “English” match up and then determining what “you” think the Scripture means. To be properly renewed you must properly study (2 Tim 2:15). Biblical study is much more than just reading. The Bible was not written in English, but in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. A knowledge of these languages is imperative for proper biblical study, and if not a direct knowledge, then at least a knowledge of the “scholarly works” which properly interpret the languages is imperative. Biblical customs, geography, understanding of literary style, and history (etc.) weight behind the meaning of each word in each text. Without a proper knowledge here as well your interpretation of Scripture with be riddled with error and false interpretations.

Respectfully, from reading your interpretation of the Scripture it is riddled with the errors of the Orthodox Church. Here are some of its errors as displayed from the Rainbow Series on the Orthodox Faith: (1) baptismal regeneration (“The way of entry into the Christian Church is by baptism in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit… In the Church, the meaning of baptism is death and rebirth in Christ. It is the personal experience of Easter given to each man, the real possibility to die and to be "born anew"), (2) Univeralism (“man's sins and the sins of the whole world are forgiven and pardoned by the sacrifice of Christ”), however if ALL sins of ALL people are forgiven, then this includes ANY unbelief and thus ALL would necessarily be saved—including Judas, Pharaoh, Hitler, etc. (3) the worship of Mary (“It follows from belief in Jesus that man is created for a life far superior to that of any creature, even the angels who glorify God and serve the cause of man's salvation. It is precisely this conviction which is affirmed when the Church hails Mary the Mother of Christ as "more honorable than the cherubim and beyond compare more glorious than the seraphim." For what is glorified as already accomplished in the human Mary is precisely what is expected and hoped for by all men "who hear the word of God and keep it") as opposed to the true Christian who desires to be like Christ and not His mother!

There are several other errors in the tradition that you have chosen to associate yourself. Our hopes and prayers are that (1) God will deliver you from such false teaching, (2) that you will discover the real meaning Scripture and thus hope and faith in Christ.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? - Tue Jan 04, 2005 5:01 AM

J Edwards,

Quote
Dear sir your sarcasm is noted, but NO this is not what I mean. Exegesis is taking a Scripture or a group of Scripture and analyzing them from the original languages and determining what they mean within the context of which they are stated. Unfortunately, your "examination" of Scripture was not (1) from the original text, (2) is not translated within context, (3) is basically isogesis and not exegesis. Thus, far beyond what you insinuated, I desire you to exegete a selected Scripture or group of Scriptures so not to diminish the grammatical/historical hermeneutic. See here for more.


You have got to be kidding. All you ask for is scarcasm. You want me to go to original language???

The Bible was written in Greek, was studied in Greek, was preached in Greek, was practices in Greek for the first 1000yrs almost exclusively. Latin in the Roman See only and only partially for the Learned class and was not the spoken language until late 7th and 8th centuries in the west.
It really didn't matter, most documents and Church writtings were coming from the East. And you want me to translate using original texts and content. That is PRECISELY what you got from the best Greek Scholars of that day from the very beginning, including the Apostles themeselves.
What you actually got was from the original text of the Apostles, the teachers of them since and explained in that language from the entire teachings, not just what eventually was written.

Quote
Far from God not using scholarship you will be hard pressed to find a “stupid” biblical figure in Scripture (save the reprobate). Our problem today is with individuals not using the proper hermeneutical tools to interpret Scripture and thus they fall into error upon error revealing their inability to properly know God and interpret His Word (2 Pet 3:16, ...they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction). While much scholarship is in error—not all is, and even that which “is” in error God can manifest and turn it for His glory! Your claim that God is not the God of scholarship is not biblical!


I'm not the one writing the Gospels. Allthough you are proclaiming that is what you need to do, thus you better have some scholarship. I can see the trouble you have with the English language,you will surely have trouble with the Greek.

The most scholarly was Christ. He gave it to and even if you want to put the OT into it, it would still apply. However, we are dealing with NT mostly here. He gave ALL Truth to the apostles, They taught, explained and the believers put it into practice even before it was ever written.
We don't have that probem of trying to find Truth. We have it, It was given long ago. Millions of believers were saved by it. One cannot fall into error if one relies on the Holy Spirit rather than their terrific hermeneutical skills. That is precisely where all the error has ever come from. Every single false teaching came about because some brilliant bishop thought he could do better, thus strayed from the Gospel Truth. Two, in particular come to mind, Origen, brilliant man, Augustine, another, Both amount to very little within the Church because of their false teachings. They did not stick to what has always been believed. That always is the Holy Spirit working within His Body, His Church preserving that Gospel. He is not interested in preserving only a portion of it, but all of it.
Protestants have thrown out everything but what was written, thus need to go through hoops and never have gotten it all right. Every group has some truth, but none have it all. If you all got together, you might have the Truth, but even then, I'm not so sure.

Quote
fall into error upon error revealing their inability to properly know God and interpret His Word (2 Pet 3:16,
This is applying directly to you. As is II Pet 1:20. Man is not supposed to interpret scripture. Why? It does not need to be interpreted. All Truth was given including the teaching, meaning, and practice. That is what is precisely being safeguarded by the Holy Spirit through the faithful. He gave it to us totally. Not piecemeal, not some vague statements and then left it to us to attempt to decipher. You are epitomizing the very thing Paul and the Holy Spirit knew that sinful man, alone, with his great penchant for pride, ego, individualism made sure it would never be left with one person.

I might add a good example are those the protestants gastigate to no end, the Pope. He, and He alone has the power of interpretation, in fact it is infallible. Yet, the reformers kicked that theory out because they saw all the error creeping in. So what did they do? Maybe not meaning to, but they virtually opened up scripture to private interpretation. The scholastic and enlightenment movements, the Age of Reason, relagated the Bible to nothing more that another literature or science book. They literally had a free-for all.
Really, all you are doing is throwing around all your personal opinions with all this great hermeneutical skill. Why do you think there could possibly be 40,000 plus versions. You have a serious problem with your method.
Yet, on the other hand, the Gospel, within the Church, that Christ founded, has not changed the fundalmental faith, meaning, and practice of it for 2000 years. You cannot find a single century that the Church has not from one generation to the next followed what was always understood from the beginning. Why could it be any different? It is Christ, Himself we are speaking about. If you believe Christ can and or did change the Gospel somewhere since the Apostles and He gave more to someone else, I have never heard about it. But I can assure you, Truth does not come to individuals. I only know that because the Bible says so. So to rely on you or any other individual to actually interpret, which is new gospel from the original, would be very unsafe, but also unscriptural.
That you chose to do so is your choice. But that choice is not mine. If you are satisified that you can come up with ALL TRUTH on your own and only from partial truth, which is not explained Truth, so be it.

Quote
Your claim that God is not the God of scholarship is not biblical!
That is precisely the point I was making. It is His Scholarship I am relying on even before the Apostles received it.

Quote
Apparently, the Corinthians had the same mindset and were riddled with error! Though you claim not to decipher, yet we read posts in which you have “falsely” deciphered Scripture.

Yes, thanks to them, you even have a written portion. The Gospel was meant to be oral. It was in the oral tradition throughout history to that point. They did not have printing presses like we do. That is precisely why the Gospel was given to several individuals at the same time, not one. Even the OT is really several individuals though they are separated by many years, but the fact they are consistant shows it is not them but some higher Power, namely God, who was leading. them. Moses wrote the first 5 books. Do you really think he lived with Adam to get first hand facts. It was handed down stories and the guidance of God that wrote them. The NT is no different. We have the written letters only because Paul could not travel again and at those moments, so he wrote. Otherwise, we would have had the Bible written by second hand disciples, which we actually do have, but protestants have always denied their validity.

Quote
more than just reading a few verses, seeing which words in “English” match up and then determining what “you” think the Scripture means. To be properly renewed you must properly study
Reading and studying is what we are only supposed to do. You should have been properly taught and then when reading and studying you can apply it to your Christian life. It is a life of living, not intellectual finding it. Protestants were not always so independent or individualistic. My Grandfather and Father were protestants. They were taught by their respective churches. The churches had creeds, most still use the same that someone mentioned earlier in this thread. But those were guidelines of faith for those churches. ONe was taught and you were expected to teach your children the same.
Somehow, somewhere within the last 75 years churches lost their credibility. People moved from church to themselves to determine or accept truth. Thus the proliferation of truths in the 1000's.

Quote
The Bible was not written in English, but in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. A knowledge of these languages is imperative for proper biblical study, and if not a direct knowledge, then at least a knowledge of the “scholarly works” which properly interpret the languages is imperative. Biblical customs, geography, understanding of literary style, and history (etc.) weight behind the meaning of each word in each text. Without a proper knowledge here as well your interpretation of Scripture with be riddled with error and false interpretations.
As I pointed out above, this is all moot for me. I have available the best scholars the Church could ever have for 2000 years, including the Original deciminators, and the Original Giver of that Truth. All who spoke Greek.

The Rainbow Series does not have any problems or errors as per scripture. Although it would help that you not attempt to add your thoughts to it. Two things you make into an error and it is not the Rainbow Series but your analysis and misquoting as well. But, Hey, what can you expect from such a one who claims great hermeneutical and scholarly skills, can't even quote properly or more accurate, state it properly. I can see why you have so much trouble understanding the Bible.

Quote
There are several other errors in the tradition that you have chosen to associate yourself. Our hopes and prayers are that (1) God will deliver you from such false teaching, (2) that you will discover the real meaning Scripture and thus hope and faith in Christ.
Errors as opposed to your man-made interpretation of Scripture. And errors in the paraphrasing which you did inaccurately. I have discovered the real meaning of not only Scripture but the Christian Gospel as delievered by the Holy Spirit to His Church. I have faith in Christ and the Promises of Christ and the Holy Spirit. A faith which is sorely lacking in you. What I don't have is faith in myself that I could actually interpret scripture, let alone there is no need to do so and hopefully do a better job that the Holy Spirit.

I think it is you who need the prayers of all Orthodox Christians. And by the way (you )(they) are prayed for by All.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? - Tue Jan 04, 2005 5:14 AM

Aslans Singer,

Quote
Rom 9:14-26 ( it seems clear to me)
Me too.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? - Tue Jan 04, 2005 5:23 AM

Quote
I might add a good example are those the protestants gastigate to no end, the Pope. He, and He alone has the power of interpretation, in fact it is infallible.


Scripture, please?

Quote
Why do you think there could possibly be 40,000 plus versions.


False claim. Here is that link again because you need to stop putting forth lies.

Roman drama

Quote
But, Hey, what can you expect from such a one who claims great hermeneutical and scholarly skills, can't even quote properly or more accurate, state it properly. I can see why you have so much trouble understanding the Bible.


You have offered very little in way of scripture and nothing for exegesis. All you have done is stand on your soapbox and parrot Rome. Now, please drop the personal attacks.


God bless,

william
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? - Tue Jan 04, 2005 5:24 AM

Exegete it?


God bless,

william
Posted By: CovenantInBlood

Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? - Tue Jan 04, 2005 5:39 AM

William,

Quote
You said,

You have offered very little in way of scripture and nothing for exegesis. All you have done is stand on your soapbox and parrot Rome. Now, please drop the personal attacks.


You may have Sojourner confused with OrthodoxCatholic. Sojourner has admitted no loyalty to Rome.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? - Tue Jan 04, 2005 5:45 AM

Logos-x,

Greetings once again Logo-x,
I keep getting these notices from this thread so I thought I would pop back in. I have just read your last post and see a few things below which were not evident in our discussion.

Quote
Since we know that eternal life is the gift of God through Christ alone, and that man does not have the Life without Him, then a man without Him IS only temporal...mortal.

Our mortality makes it temporal.
Incorrect. For a universalist, how could you even arrive at this idea. Christ's resurrection provided life for all human beings who ever lived. However, we know in this temporal life, unbelievers have life as do believers. The same holds true in eternity. What they do not have in eternity is the possibility of not being ever IN Christ as we (believers) do in our temporal state. Man in hell will have the grace of God. God is present in Hell in that sense because He maintains His creation. If we remove God's Grace, life ends, it becomes void, even if He removed it right now. Creation would return to the void it was before creation. We also know that those in Hell are immortal, so your pemise is incorrect.


Quote
It is one thing to have the potential for immortal life...but quite another to attain it.
God removed Adam and Eve from the garden to prevent them living forever, and placed angels at the gate to keep the way.

So...God "overirding the nature of their creation" has already been done right at the begining. A fact ignored by teachers of eternal torment.

Adam and Eve were not removed to prevent them living forever. It prevented them from eating of the Tree of Life and thus making evil permanent and eternal. Evil ends at His second coming. Satan is overthrown and loses all power. He is partially defeated already in losing control over death.
So another premise falls. As long as you abide by Scripture.

Quote
But then I see verses like this:
1Co 5:5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
This verse properly understood does not help your view Logos. Paul is excommunicating this person from the Church. He is putting Him out of Grace of the Church and letting Satan have him. This pertains to temporal life of this individual. The word flesh here is passions of the flesh. To give you an example. What it means is to let Satan draw this man down to the lowest level so that He may come to his senses and see his error and repent. By repenting he will be saving his soul in the Day of the Lord.


Just a few more cents..... carry on....
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? - Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:43 PM

Quote
CovenantInBlood said:
William,

Quote
You said,

You have offered very little in way of scripture and nothing for exegesis. All you have done is stand on your soapbox and parrot Rome. Now, please drop the personal attacks.


You may have Sojourner confused with OrthodoxCatholic. Sojourner has admitted no loyalty to Rome.


As a Lutheran Protestant, I give thanks that God raised up the Orthodox Church as a bulwark against the expansion of the Papacy. However, by denying justification by faith alone, the Orthodox Church shares the chief error of the Papacy. Perhaps sojourner could explain how this has occurred despite the unanimous testimony of the early fathers:

"Similarly we also, who by His will have been called in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, or our own wisdom or understanding or godliness, nor by such deeds as we have done in holiness of heart, but by that faith through which Almighty God has justified all men since the beginning of time. Glory be to Him, forever and ever, Amen." - St. Clement of Rome (Letter to the Corinthians, par. 32)

"Human beings can be saved from the ancient serpent in no other way than by believing in him who, when he was raised up from the earth on the tree of martyrdom in the likeness of sinful flesh, drew all things to himself and gave life to the dead." - Irenaeus (Against the Heresies, IV, 2, 7).

"Indeed, this is the perfect and complete glorification of God, when one does not exult in his own righteousness, but recognizing oneself as lacking true righteousness to be justified by faith alone in Christ." - St. Basil the Great (Homily on Humility, PG 31.532; TFoTC vol. 9, p. 479)

"They said that he who adhered to faith alone was cursed; but he, Paul, shows that he who adhered to faith alone is blessed." - St. John Chrysostom (First Corinthians, Homily 20, PG 61.164)

"For you believe the faith; why then do you add other things, as if faith were not sufficient to justify? You make yourselves captive, and you subject yourself to the law." - St. John Chrysostom (Epistle to Titus, Homily 3, PG 62.651)
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? - Wed Jan 05, 2005 12:30 AM

covenantintheblood,

We adhere to the Church Fathers. They have not left the teachings of the Apostles. You gave two quotes, St J. Chrysostom where he uses the phrase "faith alone". St Basil however, puts the correct wording of what faith alone actually means, that is "faith alone in Christ".
The Church has always adhered to the justification by faith.
The Church in the last 500 years does not use the alone any longer when using faith because it does not mean what the protestants have made it to mean. It is neither a simple faith, nor a faith alone. It is the protestants who have left the fold of the fathers and have isolated its meaning to a simple faith, a one-time event in the life of the believer, which it is not.
Therein we have always denied the protestant understanding of 'faith alone" as did and do the Roman Catholics.
You will never find "faith alone" ever written in the Bible except in the negative in James 2:24.
However, the only way to correctly phrase it is as in Rom 5:1 , Rom 1:17, Gal 3:11, Eph 2:8 and many more.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? - Wed Jan 05, 2005 2:55 AM

averagefeller,

You aught to get your blinders off. I tell you directly what Church I belong to and you put me into another.
Maybe you don't know the history of Christianity very well. I suggest you read some simple history books for enlightenment.
I give you an example of who the protestants castigate and you want scripture to prove they castigate him. I think you have this auto - key and anything you don't understand you push that key. "Scripture please".
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? - Wed Jan 05, 2005 3:07 AM

I apologize for not taking your claims as truth without reason. I simply refuse to walk blindly when our Lord gave us His Word.

Quote

1Jo 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. (KJV)

Act 17:10-11 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. (KJV)



God bless,

william
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? - Wed Jan 05, 2005 4:42 AM

averagefellar,

Quote
1Jo 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. (KJV)

Act 17:10-11 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. (KJV)


Yes, however, the first one of I John, the presumption is that one already has the Truth in order to test other teachings. You are first interpreting it, then testing to see if all others match your interpretation.

Second one is the same. The Bereans were simply going back to the OT which Paul was quoting to see if he was correct. They were not interpreting against what Paul was teaching. Again, one must know truth before one can rightly divide.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? - Wed Jan 05, 2005 5:00 AM

You may look here, Total Depravity with scriptural support and show us all how wrong we are.


God bless,

william
Posted By: CovenantInBlood

Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? - Wed Jan 05, 2005 5:47 AM

Sojourner,

Quote
sojourner said:
covenantintheblood,

We adhere to the Church Fathers. They have not left the teachings of the Apostles. You gave two quotes, St J. Chrysostom where he uses the phrase "faith alone". St Basil however, puts the correct wording of what faith alone actually means, that is "faith alone in Christ".
The Church has always adhered to the justification by faith.
The Church in the last 500 years does not use the alone any longer when using faith because it does not mean what the protestants have made it to mean. It is neither a simple faith, nor a faith alone. It is the protestants who have left the fold of the fathers and have isolated its meaning to a simple faith, a one-time event in the life of the believer, which it is not.
Therein we have always denied the protestant understanding of 'faith alone" as did and do the Roman Catholics.
You will never find "faith alone" ever written in the Bible except in the negative in James 2:24.
However, the only way to correctly phrase it is as in Rom 5:1 , Rom 1:17, Gal 3:11, Eph 2:8 and many more.


The amount of confusion in this thread grows by the minute, it would seem. confused Speratus is the one you mean to reply to, not me.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? - Wed Jan 05, 2005 7:11 AM

sojourner

I am curious as to what you believe Protestants (particularly Reformed Protestants) mean when they say "faith alone".

Tom
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? - Wed Jan 05, 2005 9:37 AM

Quote
sojourner said:
St Basil however, puts the correct wording of what faith alone actually means, that is "faith alone in Christ".
The Church has always adhered to the justification by faith. The Church in the last 500 years does not use the alone any longer when using faith because it does not mean what the protestants have made it to mean.


So the Orthodox Church stopped teaching, as St. Basil had, that man is "justified by faith alone in Christ" to avoid any confusion with the "justification by faith alone in Christ alone" being taught by the Protestants? Wouldn't it have been better to retain the formulation of St. Basil and explain to the Protestants where they had erred?
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? - Wed Jan 05, 2005 10:14 PM

speratus,

Quote
So the Orthodox Church stopped teaching, as St. Basil had, that man is "justified by faith alone in Christ" to avoid any confusion with the "justification by faith alone in Christ alone" being taught by the Protestants? Wouldn't it have been better to retain the formulation of St. Basil and explain to the Protestants where they had erred?

No, we have not stopped teaching it at all. We just never use the simple understanding in writing that it is 'faith alone" as the protestants understand.
The protestants have not changed in 500 years, does it look like they might in future, doubtful.
It is either saved by faith, or by faith in Christ alone, but never by 'faith alone".
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? - Wed Jan 05, 2005 10:24 PM

Tom,

My understanding of what some believe and there are several variations of it, but generally, believe that man is saved to eternity upon the simple ascent of faith. That it is a one-time event in ones life. This has led to the erronous teaching of OSAS. Faith in and of itself does not save, it justifies the believer to God. It also leads to the idea that the good works is the result of faith or product of faith.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? - Thu Jan 06, 2005 8:00 AM

sojourner

You obviously missed speratus's meaning.
Protestants believe in faith alone in Christ alone.

Tom
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? - Thu Jan 06, 2005 8:07 AM

Quote
sojourner said:
speratus,

Quote
So the Orthodox Church stopped teaching, as St. Basil had, that man is "justified by faith alone in Christ" to avoid any confusion with the "justification by faith alone in Christ alone" being taught by the Protestants? Wouldn't it have been better to retain the formulation of St. Basil and explain to the Protestants where they had erred?

No, we have not stopped teaching it at all. We just never use the simple understanding in writing that it is 'faith alone' as the protestants understand.
The protestants have not changed in 500 years, does it look like they might in future, doubtful.
It is either saved by faith, or by faith in Christ alone, but never by 'faith alone'.


You would be hard pressed to find a Protestant who believes that faith is ever alone or that faith is ever separated from the object of faith (i.e., Christ). Protestants are "protesting" the Roman departure from St. Basil, "recognizing oneself as lacking true righteousness to be justified by faith alone in Christ." Surely, the Orthodox Church does not agree with justification by works of the Papacy (i.e., indulgences, satisfactions, merits of the Saints, purgatory, priestly offering up of the Mass for the sins of the living and the dead, etc.)?
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? - Thu Jan 06, 2005 5:28 PM

speratus,

Quote
You would be hard pressed to find a Protestant who believes that faith is ever alone or that faith is ever separated from the object of faith (i.e., Christ). Protestants are "protesting" the Roman departure from St. Basil, "recognizing oneself as lacking true righteousness to be justified by faith alone in Christ." Surely, the Orthodox Church does not agree with justification by works of the Papacy (i.e., indulgences, satisfactions, merits of the Saints, purgatory, priestly offering up of the Mass for the sins of the living and the dead, etc.)?


I don't know all the changes the Romans made in their interpretations of either Scripture or the Original Tradition of the Church. If you say that the Romans departed from St Basil, then there must have been a change. The Church, the Orthodox Church adheres to the teaching of St Basil. He is recognized as a Father of the Church because He remained within the faith of the generations before Him.
I believe I stated above serveral times that we do in fact believe in justification by faith. Christ did the work of redemption, man simply needs to believe and accept by faith.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? - Fri Jan 07, 2005 9:20 PM

sojourner,

Quote
The Church, the Orthodox Church adheres to the teaching of St Basil. He is recognized as a Father of the Church because He remained within the faith of the generations before Him.


And because he put scripture above the tradition of the Fathers?

Quote
We are not content simply because this is the tradition of the Fathers. What is important is that the Fathers followed the meaning of the Scripture.
St. Basil the Great (On the Holy Spirit, Chapter 7, par. 16)
Posted By: jaf

Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? - Wed Jun 22, 2016 11:37 PM

I think it would go a long way toward helping us better understand your words if you would answer the question from an earlier post. What church do you attend,if any at all. The word orthodox is placed before many churches in this country i.e.Orthodox Presbyterian Church. What is the name and denomination of your church? Are you purposely hiding it? Come clean sir,please. Thanks
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? - Thu Jun 23, 2016 2:01 AM

Originally Posted By: jaf
I think it would go a long way toward helping us better understand your words if you would answer the question from an earlier post. What church do you attend,if any at all. The word orthodox is placed before many churches in this country i.e.Orthodox Presbyterian Church. What is the name and denomination of your church? Are you purposely hiding it? Come clean sir,please. Thanks

1. He is referring to the Greek Orthodox Church.

2. You won't be getting a reply because this person is long gone.
Posted By: jaf

Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? - Thu Jun 23, 2016 7:00 PM

Thanks Pilgrim.
© 2017 The Highway