Limited Atonement

Post by **_Paidion** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 12:28 pm

Has anyone considered the possibility that Jesus "giving his life as a ransom for many" may not be referring to His sacrifice on the cross?

Consider the context of Jesus's words in Matthew:

But Jesus called them to him and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you; but whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave; even as the Son of man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." Matthew 20:25-26

Jesus was instructing his disciples that they ought to be servants of others. He stated that He Himself came not to be served, but to serve.
One who really serves others must "give his life" to do so. That is he must give up his self-serving life for the sake of others. In this sense the giving of his life is substituted for those he serves. Instead of the others having to spend their lives in the tasks to be accomplished (whatever they are), the one who serves spends his in their place.

As I see understand the passage in Matthew, it was not Jesus's death that was substitutionary, but rather His life, the life He lived while here on earth.

There are two other references to Jesus giving His life as a ransom: Mark 10:45 and I Timothy 2:6. The context of the passage in Mark is similar to that of Matthew, and there is nothing in the I Timothy passage which favours interpreting it with reference to His death any more than to His life, whereby He served others while here on earth.

Post by **_brody_in_ga** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 1:33 pm

Paidion wrote:Has anyone considered the possibility that Jesus "giving his life as a ransom for many" may not be referring to His sacrifice on the cross?

Consider the context of Jesus's words in Matthew:

But Jesus called them to him and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you; but whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave; even as the Son of man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." Matthew 20:25-26

Jesus was instructing his disciples that they ought to be servants of others. He stated that He Himself came not to be served, but to serve.
One who really serves others must "give his life" to do so. That is he must give up his self-serving life for the sake of others. In this sense the giving of his life is substituted for those he serves. Instead of the others having to spend their lives in the tasks to be accomplished (whatever they are), the one who serves spends his in their place.

As I see understand the passage in Matthew, it was not Jesus's death that was substitutionary, but rather His life, the life He lived while here on earth.

There are two other references to Jesus giving His life as a ransom: Mark 10:45 and I Timothy 2:6. The context of the passage in Mark is similar to that of Matthew, and there is nothing in the I Timothy passage which favours interpreting it with reference to His death any more than to His life, whereby He served others while here on earth.

What did Jesus' death and ressurrection mean then? If(and I know you believe)that Jesus was the "Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world", what does all this mean, in your view?

Post by **_Paidion** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 9:46 pm

What did Jesus' death and ressurrection mean then? If(and I know you believe)that Jesus was the "Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world", what does all this mean, in your view?

Yes, I certainly do believe in Christ's supreme sacrifice on our behalf.
He was indeed the Lamb of God, in that He went meekly as a lamb to the slaughter without protest, and "opened not His mouth".

Yes, Jesus takes away (present tense) the sin of the world. He's doing that continuously. He's not merely forgiving it. That's not the purpose of His death, but taking it away, giving victory to those who repent and become disciples as well as giving victory to those who have already become regenertated.

You may want to read Chapter 1 of "The Supreme Sacrifice of Jesus Christ" which was posted in the Essays section. This chapter explains my position in greater detail.

Post by **_STEVE7150** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 10:06 pm

[color=blue]Greek lutron, antilutron (1Ti_2:6). ("A price paid for freeing a captive".) Anti implies vicarious, equivalent substitution, "a ransom for many"

I still think there's some sense in a substitutionary suffering. e.g In the UK if a group of our citizens were arrested and sentenced to a week in a french prison the offer of Her Majesty the Queen of England to take their place for just two days would be considered of greater value and worth to the satisfaction of law.
If the literal penalty for sin is eternal separation from God then clearly Christ did not suffer the literal penalty![/color]

It seems to me the text of 1st Tim 2.6 clearly says ransom means "equal substitution" for whatever is called for. Whether you believe the ransom is a debt payment or for forgiveness or for victory over sin or all of the above, Jesus paid the price with his whole life and death. There is no limited atonement in sight and as far as i can see it's like the old expression, error begets error. Yes in some cases "few are chosen" like the disciples were because Jesus said "you did not choose me i chose you" , however that does'nt translate to limited atonement , it simply means they were chosen for that specific task (witnesses) not that they were some of the very few chosen to be saved. It's simply reading into the text things that are'nt stated.

Post by **_brody_in_ga** » Wed Sep 20, 2006 8:05 am

Paidion wrote:
What did Jesus' death and ressurrection mean then? If(and I know you believe)that Jesus was the "Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world", what does all this mean, in your view?
Yes, I certainly do believe in Christ's supreme sacrifice on our behalf.
He was indeed the Lamb of God, in that He went meekly as a lamb to the slaughter without protest, and "opened not His mouth".

Yes, Jesus takes away (present tense) the sin of the world. He's doing that continuously. He's not merely forgiving it. That's not the purpose of His death, but taking it away, giving victory to those who repent and become disciples as well as giving victory to those who have already become regenertated.

You may want to read Chapter 1 of "The Supreme Sacrifice of Jesus Christ" which was posted in the Essays section. This chapter explains my position in greater detail.

Thanks Paidion. BTW, I love your name.... what does it mean?

Post by **_Paidion** » Wed Sep 20, 2006 9:18 pm

"Paidion" (pie-dee'-on) is a Greek word whose original meaning was "trained little child". A related word is "paideuo" (to train a child), and "paideia" (child training). In later Greek (and in the New Testament), the word "paidion" came to mean simply "child".

Post by **_brody_in_ga** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 9:37 am

Paidion wrote:"Paidion" (pie-dee'-on) is a Greek word whose original meaning was "trained little child". A related word is "paideuo" (to train a child), and "paideia" (child training). In later Greek (and in the New Testament), the word "paidion" came to mean simply "child".

Cool, although I pronounce it quite different. PAY-ID-E-UN. Thanks for the info.