The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum "Christ died in a general way for all."?

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.

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

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."*

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.

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.

J Edwards,


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.


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.

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.

That is precisely the point I was making. It is His Scholarship I am relying on even before the Apostles received it.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Aslans Singer,

Me too.

Scripture, please?


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

Roman drama


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

Exegete it?


God bless,

william

William,


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

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.

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.


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.

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....

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)

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.

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".

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



God bless,

william