Donations for the month of June


We have received a total of $100 in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Search

Member Spotlight
Anthony C.
Anthony C.
NJ/PA
Posts: 227
Joined: May 2016
Show All Member Profiles 
Forum Statistics
Forums30
Topics6,638
Posts51,173
Members927
Most Online373
Mar 5th, 2017
Top Posters(All Time)
Pilgrim 13,436
Tom 3,455
chestnutmare 2,915
J_Edwards 2,615
Wes 1,856
John_C 1,758
RJ_ 1,582
MarieP 1,578
gotribe 1,060
Top Posters(30 Days)
Tom 21
Pilgrim 14
John_C 3
Johan 2
Meta4 1
Recent Posts
Mexican illegal immigration into the USA
by Anthony C.. Wed Jun 20, 2018 9:32 PM
Presuppositional Debate
by Tom. Wed Jun 20, 2018 1:12 PM
Question about sermons
by Johan. Wed Jun 20, 2018 11:54 AM
Same sex atrraction sinful then what?
by Tom. Tue Jun 19, 2018 11:35 AM
TWU Denied Law School Accreditation
by Tom. Mon Jun 18, 2018 1:14 AM
Reformed Confessions of Faith and the Traditional Text
by Pilgrim. Sun Jun 17, 2018 5:43 AM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Hop To
Page 4 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? #19782
Fri Dec 31, 2004 11:09 PM
Fri Dec 31, 2004 11:09 PM

A
Anonymous OP
Unregistered
Anonymous OP
Unregistered
A


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

Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? #19783
Sat Jan 01, 2005 1:10 AM
Sat Jan 01, 2005 1:10 AM

A
Anonymous OP
Unregistered
Anonymous OP
Unregistered
A


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.

Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? #19784
Sat Jan 01, 2005 1:43 AM
Sat Jan 01, 2005 1:43 AM

A
Anonymous OP
Unregistered
Anonymous OP
Unregistered
A


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

Last edited by averagefellar; Sat Jan 01, 2005 1:55 AM.
Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? #19785
Sat Jan 01, 2005 5:34 AM
Sat Jan 01, 2005 5:34 AM

A
Anonymous OP
Unregistered
Anonymous OP
Unregistered
A


Hey sojourner, let me help you out with the scriptures you graciously commented on. And it does seem that you need help. bananas

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 earlier. 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 context. It would be safe to say that salvation comes by giving away everything that i own, if i ignored context.

Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? #19786
Sat Jan 01, 2005 9:17 AM
Sat Jan 01, 2005 9:17 AM

A
Anonymous OP
Unregistered
Anonymous OP
Unregistered
A


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.

Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? #19787
Sat Jan 01, 2005 10:00 AM
Sat Jan 01, 2005 10:00 AM

A
Anonymous OP
Unregistered
Anonymous OP
Unregistered
A


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

Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? #19788
Sat Jan 01, 2005 10:17 AM
Sat Jan 01, 2005 10:17 AM

A
Anonymous OP
Unregistered
Anonymous OP
Unregistered
A


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.

Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? #19789
Sat Jan 01, 2005 1:04 PM
Sat Jan 01, 2005 1:04 PM

A
Anonymous OP
Unregistered
Anonymous OP
Unregistered
A


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

Last edited by Soli Deo Gloria; Sat Jan 01, 2005 1:05 PM.
Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? #19790
Sat Jan 01, 2005 1:10 PM
Sat Jan 01, 2005 1:10 PM

A
Anonymous OP
Unregistered
Anonymous OP
Unregistered
A


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?

Last edited by Soli Deo Gloria; Sat Jan 01, 2005 1:11 PM.
Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? #19791
Sat Jan 01, 2005 2:58 PM
Sat Jan 01, 2005 2:58 PM

A
Anonymous OP
Unregistered
Anonymous OP
Unregistered
A


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.

Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? #19792
Sat Jan 01, 2005 3:08 PM
Sat Jan 01, 2005 3:08 PM

A
Anonymous OP
Unregistered
Anonymous OP
Unregistered
A


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.

Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? #19793
Sat Jan 01, 2005 3:13 PM
Sat Jan 01, 2005 3:13 PM

A
Anonymous OP
Unregistered
Anonymous OP
Unregistered
A


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


Scripture please?


God bless,

william

Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? #19794
Sat Jan 01, 2005 5:02 PM
Sat Jan 01, 2005 5:02 PM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
USA
J_Edwards Offline
Needs to get a Life
J_Edwards  Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
USA
So how long have you been a universalist?

Which Church do you attend?

Where is the exegesis of Scripture I asked for before?


Reformed and Always Reforming,
Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? #19795
Sat Jan 01, 2005 8:28 PM
Sat Jan 01, 2005 8:28 PM

A
Anonymous OP
Unregistered
Anonymous OP
Unregistered
A


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.

Re: Limited or Unlimited Atonement??? #19796
Sat Jan 01, 2005 8:41 PM
Sat Jan 01, 2005 8:41 PM

A
Anonymous OP
Unregistered
Anonymous OP
Unregistered
A


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????

Page 4 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 26 guests, and 116 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Micki Bowman, Nigel J, wischnotes, Dutch Michael, Ray
927 Registered Users
Shout Box
June
S M T W T F S
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Today's Birthdays
No Birthdays
Popular Topics(Views)
769,714 Gospel truth
Page Time: 0.054s Queries: 15 (0.004s) Memory: 3.0037 MB (Peak: 3.3088 MB) Zlib enabled. Server Time: 2018-06-24 10:57:40 UTC