Monsieur Calvin and UN-Limited Atonement?

[Guest]

Would it be ok to address your last post/response to me?

Mark

[_Derek]

Would it be ok to address your last post/response to me?

Mark

Why in the world would it not be ok brother? I am not offended by your comments at all, just making an observation. Upon further consideration, I was probably being a little thin skinned. I'm sure I make comments like that too sometimes.

Feel free to respond. That's why I post here. Again, I think your input is great, and is welcome!



God bless,

[Guest]

Oh my..I just read the Alexandrian cult thread!
No wonder SSS is biassed against James White! (Author of the King James Only Controversy)

Here is me trying to figure out the hostility of this person toward a brother, and BOOM, it is staring me in the face in one short thread.

Man, the venom people like James White receive from these cultists over the issue of the King James Bible debate is legendary.

Had I known of that thread I would have instantly recognised why SSS hates James White so much!

It is a lesson for us all, how one single issue, can color our whole world in such a dismally horrible fashion. Quite scary actually.

Moving along.

Mark

[Guest]

I don't "hate James White". And for you to ascribe such evil to me must be rebuked immediatley. I know you get away with such slander amongst yourselves and on your forums and chatrooms, but not here. I hate much of what he believes. I hate his tactics and his attitude, because it is ungodly. Any real Christian is supposed to hate such things. You say we're the "cultists", we say YOU ARE. You have no final authority, and your faith is in a bunch of lost pieces of paper(original autographs) no one has seen in 1900 years. James White does not believe any Bible anywhere on this earth in any language is God's INFALLABLE word. If he DOES, tell me WHICH BIBLE is the infallable, inerrant Word of God, and where can I purchase it? God "almost" preserved the Bible, but not quite is what you really believe. James White spent 272 slandering millions of Bible believers, past and present, and he totally misrepresented the issues, the arguments and the facts. In Proverbs 6 the Lord said lying lips are an abomination to Him. Your problem is with the Word of God, not me.

[Guest]

I reject that John is addressing Jews here (in 1 Jn). There is nothing , I repeat, nothing, in the text of 1 John that would lead to this conclusion. The only reason you are saying that he is, is because your predetermined soteriology leaves you no other option, so you must eisogete. At the best you are merely asserting your speculations.

But why take such a dim view of my interpretation?

1/ It fits with what the same author says in other places.
2/ It cannot be denied that John “is” addressing a Jewish audience.
3/ The early writers were concerned to teach the Universal extent of the atonement for the whole world including the Gentiles.
4/ By making it mean “every individual” other scriptures are contradicting themself.
5/ We both have presuppositions, so that issue is irrelevant.
6/ You need to balance your presupposition with all the other passages, and especially similar ones from the very same author.

The mere fact that the "early Church had to deal with Jewish ideas about the scope of the death of Christ" doesn't prove your point, as that is not John's concern in the context of this passage.

But I never made that “the” issue. I simply stated the obvious, namely that John is referring to “us Jews” and also “ the whole world” meaning the Gentiles.
I never exegeted the text beyond that simple point in any way, shape or form.
If we were arguing about what John is saying there, regarding his dissuading Christians from sinning, I am not aware of it.

If the intended audience is not Jewish, your entire arguement about this passage falls apart, and the "ours" in the verse in question is by default "us who believe". Rather thin ice to place such a heavy assumption, in my opinion.

I do not think it is thin ice at all.
For you, the passage reads that Jesus is the saviour of “us” believers, and also the saviour of “every individual” in the whole world. That is your reading.

I am saying, the passage reads that Jesus is not only the saviour of “us” Jews, but the saviour of the “Gentiles also” whole world.

I have shown you 3 other passages used by the same author, that clearly has this idea of “Jews and Gentiles” in his mind, and yet you think I am on thin ice!

Then of course there is that word “propitiation” in this verse, which you do not touch at all!

What results from not touching that word is quite straight forward. It amounts to saying that Jesus propitiates for every individual in the world! That is what you are saying, unless you deny the meaning of the term for propitiation there.

Is that your position?

If you believe in substitutionary atonement (a Calvinist doctrine mind you) then you have no way out of your dilemma.
You would need to reject substitutionary atonement, the meaning of the word propitiation, and all for what? To hold onto what exactly?

A Saviour who potentially can save everyone, if they will just believe?

Maybe you do not know this, but Calvinists actually teach that if a sinner repents and believes, they shall be saved! We teach this, and do so boldly, knowing that God shall enable all for whom Christ died, to call out to Him for mercy.

The same author John again tells us,
“Joh 6:37 All that the Father gives Me shall come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will in no way cast out.

And

Joh 6:39 And this is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all which He has given Me I should lose nothing but should raise it up again at the last day.

And to be clear,

Joh 6:65 And He said, Because of this I said to you that no one can come to Me unless it was given to him from My Father.

We preach a sufficient saviour for all sinners, but an actual real saviour of believers.

This same author records for us the High Priestly prayer of Jesus in John 17, and found there are these words of Jesus,

Joh 17:6 I have revealed Your name to the men whom You gave to Me out of the world. They were Yours, and You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word.

And

Joh 17:9 I pray for them. I do not pray for the world, but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours.

Do you not think that if John was saying that Jesus was the saviour for every individual, the Lord Himself might have at least prayed for every individual?

And He said that before going to the cross.

There is something amiss with your picture and understanding of scripture.

Quote:
I quoted two other passages that show us what John’s consistent message was, but you seem to want to hold onto the “idea” that John is meaning "all people without exception".


Those other passages tell us something very true, why you feel the need interpret all others by them, regardless of their context, does not make sense however.

Well, they certainly fit with these other passages of John I have just given you, don’t they?

If it does, then every single person does not have their sins imputed to their account, because Christ has reconciled every individual to Himself.
It’s not rocket science folks, just a tradition that many have been taught, thinking all along that they were believing the Bible.

I don't have a problem seeing the Corinthians passage as being about only Christians. I need to look at that one more though.

Most Non Calvinists interpret “world” there to be “every individual”, that is why I mentioned it.

If you do not agree with the above [interpretation of Timothy], then you are forced to believe that salvation is by works, (if you want to say that Saviour there depends upon how Paul uses the term in v 16, which I know no Arminian believes, right?


I understand "save thyself" in vs.16 to mean, "ensure your salvation", as the NASB renders it.

I take vs.10 at face value. I would rather not have the one word mean two different things in one sentence. It fits fine with my theology!

But I am not saying that. Maybe read that part again.

Quote:
Truly the kindness (providence or common grace) of God extends to all.
But even the circle of those to whom the message of salvation is proclaimed is wider than those who receive it by a true saving faith.


You almost have the correct interpretation here in this sentence! Very Happy Just take away the parenthesis.

Lol. Surely you do not reject God’s kindness to all, nor the fact that He is sufficient to die for the sins of all had God intended that to be the case?

I believe that God would not waste His time proclaiming His gracious message to those for whom it can have no effect.

But it does have an effect. Scripture clearly says,

2Co 2:16 to the one we are the savor of death to death, and to the other we are the savor of life to life. And who is sufficient for these things?

Of course He knows this, having destined them to this very fate!

As scripture clearly reveals,

Act 13:48 And hearing, the nations rejoiced and glorified the Word of the Lord. And as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

And

1Pe 2:8 and a Stone-of-stumbling and a Rock-of-offense to those disobeying, who stumble at the Word, to which they also were appointed.

Mark

[Guest]

I don't "hate James White".

Well pardon me if I got that impression. Let us just say you are loving him less then.
As for the rest of your mumbo jumbo, I cannot believe you are free to post such garbage on a Christian site.

Mark

[_Derek]

2/ It cannot be denied that John “is” addressing a Jewish audience.

You said this, and said it was "obvious". How is that? What in this epistle leads you to this obvious conclusion?

4/ By making it mean “every individual” other scriptures are contradicting themself.

It only contradicts Calvinist interpretations of other passages.

I have shown you 3 other passages used by the same author, that clearly has this idea of “Jews and Gentiles” in his mind, and yet you think I am on thin ice!

Actually brother, you have shown one passage, which in it's context is talking about Jews and Gentiles, (John 11:51ff) and two that have people praising God for saving "all kinds" of people (Rev. 5:9; 14:6).

I really would like to hear why you think 1Jn was written to a Jewish audience. Is there any internal evidence?

Then of course there is that word “propitiation” in this verse, which you do not touch at all!

What results from not touching that word is quite straight forward. It amounts to saying that Jesus propitiates for every individual in the world! That is what you are saying, unless you deny the meaning of the term for propitiation there.

Is that your position?

If you believe in substitutionary atonement (a Calvinist doctrine mind you) then you have no way out of your dilemma.
You would need to reject substitutionary atonement, the meaning of the word propitiation, and all for what? To hold onto what exactly?

A Saviour who potentially can save everyone, if they will just believe?

I didn't think that would slip by!

Well, I don't think I can do this justice at this point, to be honest.

At one point I was very persueded to accept limited atonement, because the logic behind the Calvinistic understanding of "penal substitution" leads to only one of two conclusions. Namely, Universalism, or Limited Atonement. At one point, I was very much leaning toward Calvinism.

However, I realized that I was coming to that conclusion, because I was presupposing the Calvinist understanding of the atonement. I no longer do.

I think that Jesus took the punishment sufficient to save all who will place their faith in Him. In other words, Jesus was punished, so that all who are "in Him" will be justified. I don't think that Jesus took a specific amount of punishment, but was punished in general, to make propitiation for all who are "in Him".

I do not believe that x-amount of people sinned x-amount, so God exacted x-amount of punishment on Jesus. (If I am misrepresenting your atonement theory please let me know).

That is how I understand it. But when it comes down to it, the Bible doesn't tell us just how it works, and I am content to take the scripture at face value, and remain silent where God does.

To quote my position from another thread:

At this point, I am content to believe that Christ died for the whole world, (1Jn2:2), God desires that all men come to repentance, (2Pet. 3:9), He doesn't want anyone to perish, (Ez. 33:11), and that all who believe in Him will be saved. All of these points are biblical, which cannot be denied (for they are simply using the language of those verses). How that works out in a particular atonement theory or soteriology...I don't know. I am not convinced by Calvinist arguments on any of these points. So far anyway, I am certainly not done studying this subject!!

That last sentence still holds true by the way, so don't give up!

A Saviour who potentially can save everyone, if they will just believe?

Calvinists always say this, as if it proves something. Frankly it doesn't bother me at all to say that Christ died to make salvation possible. That seems to be what the bible teaches. Of course we approach this verse with different presuppostions, but I read it as supporting the above statement.

1Ti 4:10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

Quote:
If it does, then every single person does not have their sins imputed to their account, because Christ has reconciled every individual to Himself.
It’s not rocket science folks, just a tradition that many have been taught, thinking all along that they were believing the Bible.

I don't have a problem seeing the Corinthians passage as being about only Christians. I need to look at that one more though.

Most Non Calvinists interpret “world” there to be “every individual”, that is why I mentioned it.

I said that I didn't have a problem with it, because even if it can be shown to mean "only the elect", I don't think that it makes the case for limitied atonment.

Upon further consideration, however, I do think that it means the "whole world". Let me explain.

2Co 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
2Co 5:18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
2Co 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
2Co 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.
2Co 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Paul says that God has given to those who have been reconciled this ministry of reconciliation, which is the message that Jesus died for the world, and will not count their sins against them. However, this is conditional as Paul goes on to say, when he finishes the thought. The rest of the message is "be ye reconciled to God".

So yes, "the “world does have sins that are against them" and yes, "it is only believers who have their sins taken away", as Paul goes on to say. But this does not change the fact that Jesus died for the world. Interpreting "world" to mean "every individual" does not lead to universalism because the statment "not imputing their sins" is conditional, according to the action of those for whom He died.

To put it another way, "not reconciling their sins to them" is not what happens for all for whom He died (which is every individual-IMO), but is the way by which He saves all who make the choice to "be reconciled". If it is a given that their "sins are not imputed to them" upon Chirst's death, (the elect that is), why does Paul go on to "beseech" and "implore" those to whom this word will be preached to "be reconciled"? According to your interpretation he is saying "you're already reconciled, I beg you be reconciled", which doesn't make sense to me.

Thanks for the dialogue! More later I'm sure!

God bless,

[Guest]

Derek,

I think that Jesus took the punishment sufficient to save all who will place their faith in Him. In other words, Jesus was punished, so that all who are "in Him" will be justified. I don't think that Jesus took a specific amount of punishment, but was punished in general, to make propitiation for all who are "in Him".

Could an analogy be made of those who fought and died in the Civil War to set the slaves free? They died for the slaves in general, yet it is my understanding some slaves chose to remain with their masters.

[Guest]

Homer,

For your analogy to work, you would need more than an example of someone dying for the cause of freeing the slaves. You would need someone dying for the slaves, as a legal representative, where their bondage was transferred to the substitute and the substitutes freedom is transferred to the slaves. Otherwise, it is a disanalogy because Jesus did not die for our cause, He died for us, in our place, as our sin offering.

[Guest]

Tart, it is no surprise to me for you to call the truth that I posted garbage. No surprise at all. The level of ignorance is astounding.