|
Post by Steve Noel on Jan 30, 2006 17:27:55 GMT -5
I thought that I would get this topic started. I don't have time right now to go into it, but I will later. According to "5-point Calvinism" Jesus did not die for everyone, but only for the elect. As J.I. Packer states: "Definite redemption, sometimes called "particular redemption," "effective atonement," and "limited atonement," is an historic Reformed doctrine about the intention of the triune God in the death of Jesus Christ. Without doubting the infinite worth of Christ's sacrifice or the genuineness of God's "whoever will" invitation to all who hear the gospel (Rev. 22:17), the doctrine states that the death of Christ actually put away the sins of all God's elect and ensured that they would be brought to faith through regeneration and kept in faith for glory, and that this is what it was intended to achieve. From this definiteness and effectiveness follows its limitedness: Christ did not die in this efficacious sense for everyone. The proof of that, as Scripture and experience unite to teach us, is that not all are saved." Louis Berkhof says: "The Reformed position is that Christ died for the purpose of actually and certainly saving the elect, and the elect only. This is equivalent to saying that He died for the purpose of saving only those to whom He actually applies the benefits of His redemptive work." Many others, including many that consider themselves "4-point Calvinists", believe that Jesus died for all mankind. So did Christ die for some or for all?
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Jan 30, 2006 17:59:18 GMT -5
Isn't the doctrine of "Limited Atonement" a branch off of "Predestination"? How would one work without the other? They seem connected to me.
|
|
|
Post by tomah on Jan 30, 2006 18:41:44 GMT -5
That is correct Jesse.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Jan 30, 2006 19:08:50 GMT -5
Jesse, I think you're right in pointing out that they are connected. John Hendryx a "5-point Calvinist" wrote an article entitled, "Is it Possible to Deny Limited Atonement and Still Believe in Unconditional Election?" In this article he says, "...to reject limited atonement is to reject total depravity and unconditional election. The four-point Calvinists, therefore, do not really believe in election, but rather, that the natural man still has the moral ability to turn to God on his own without regenerating grace (as if faith was somehow a contribution on our part). Therefore, it is impossible to be a four-point Calvinist and remain consistent. The other points of the doctrines of grace cannot stand without it. In fact, all of the points stand or fall together since it is either God or man determines whether the atonement will be effectual." Inspite of this there have been many who agree with three or four-points of Calvinism and reject "Limited Atonement". Among them are John Bunyan (Pilgrim's Progress), John Newton (Amazing Grace), Richard Baxter, Norm Geisler, and Ron Rhodes.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Jan 30, 2006 19:22:21 GMT -5
Presbyterian Walter Elwell said: "Those who defend general redemption begin by pointing out that it is the historic view of the church, being held by the vast majority of theologians, reformers, evangelists, and fathers from the beginning of the church until the present day, including virtually all the writers before the Reformation, with the possible exception of Augustine. Among the Reformers the doctrine is found in Luther, Melanchthon, Bullinger, Latimer, Cranmer, Coverdale, and even Calvin in some of his commentaries" Others who held to a universal atonement include Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-220), Eusebius (c. 260-340), Athanasius (c. 293-373), Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 315-386), Gregory Nazianzen (324-389), Basil (c. 330-379), Ambrose (c. 340-407), Cyril of Alexandria (376-444), Richard Hocker (1553-1600), James Ussher (1581-1656), Alfred Edersheim (b. 1825), B.F. Westcott (1825-1901), J.B. Lightfoot (b. 1828), A.H. Strong (1836-1921), and A.T. Robertson (b. 1863). Yet J.I Packer equates the idea of an unlimited atonement with a new "heresy," Arminianism, as contrasted with what he calls the "old gospel," meaning biblical Christianity.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Jan 30, 2006 19:35:54 GMT -5
According to the "5-point Calvinist" position on "limited atonement" Jesus did not die for anyone who goes to hell. What then is the meaning of 2 Peter 2:1?
"But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves."
In what sense did "the sovereign Lord" buy them?
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Jan 30, 2006 19:50:44 GMT -5
A strong case for universal atonement can be made from Isaiah 53:6 "We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all." Twice the word "all" appears in this verse. If the first is universal, then so is the second. Have some gone astray or have all? This same point is emphasized in Romans 11:32 "For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all." Here the scope of God's intention to have mercy matches the scope of human sinfulness.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Jan 30, 2006 20:01:29 GMT -5
Eze 33:11 - "Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?"
2Pe 3:9 - "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."
John 3:16 - "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
That seems like FREE GRACE and UNIVERSAL ATONEMENT for all who accept it.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Jan 30, 2006 20:24:33 GMT -5
Those are good passages Jesse. Here's another one that seems impossible to insert "limited atonement" in. 1 John 2:2"He [Jesus] is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world." Could it be any plainer? The contrast here is clear. Jesus is the "atoning sacrifice" for the sins of the church, but "not only for ours": Jesus paid the price of sin for all people.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Jan 30, 2006 20:33:51 GMT -5
Paul writes in Romans 5:6 "You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly." Are we to read this text as: "You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly of the elect."?
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Jan 30, 2006 21:37:22 GMT -5
Paul writes in 1 Timothy 2:5-6 "For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men—the testimony given in its proper time." If this doesn't teach that Jesus died for everyone, then what does it teach?
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Jan 30, 2006 21:45:21 GMT -5
One more question. If the Bible teaches unlimited atonement, then what does that mean for Calvinism? If "the doctrines of grace cannot stand without it [limited atonement] and "all of the points stand or fall together", then Calvinism is proven false if the atonement is universal.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jan 31, 2006 9:22:17 GMT -5
I have heard some teach that every person has the measure of faith, and it would be their choice to put that faith in Christ.
Is Paul refering to any faith at all here or faith in Christ? It would seem that all men have faith, everyone believes something. How could all the other religions operate if everyone didn't have some type of faith.
This is something I've been musing around in my head. What do you guys think?
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Jan 31, 2006 13:07:44 GMT -5
I think it's important to make a distinction between "belief" and "faith".
We know that the devil believes, but is not saved.
Saving faith is trusting in Christ. Faith = trust.
All men are capable of trusting in Christ, but not all men do trust in Christ. And it's trusting in the work of Christ on the cross, not in ourselves, which saves us.
|
|
|
Post by tomah on Jan 31, 2006 13:23:59 GMT -5
If Christ died for ALL the sins of ALL people, then he couldn't have died for the sin of unbelief!!
If all men's unbelief has been paid for then then all sin has been forgiven - there is nothing left to forgive and we would then have universalism. But 1 John 3:23 teaches "And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ." To disobey this command is a sin, and the greatest sin of all I might add. A question to ask yourself is did Christ pay for this sin or not?
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Jan 31, 2006 13:33:12 GMT -5
Armen,
So people who are guilty of unbelief have no way of being forgiven?
Jesus died for all sin of all people. But that doesn't mean all sin IS forgiven, it means all sin CAN be forgiven if one turns away from sin and turns to Christ.
If you don't believe in Universal Atonement, how do you know that Christ died for YOUR sin?
|
|
|
Post by tomah on Jan 31, 2006 13:57:10 GMT -5
People who are guilty of unbelief can only be forgiven if Christ died for THEIR unbelief, hence they get saved at some point and hence the elect. The point i made is clear. If Christ died for Judas' unbelief then why didn't Judas at some point believe before death? It would be unjust of God (against His nature) to punish two people for the same sin. If Christ suffered for Judas' unbelief, then is Judas suffering for his unbelief? Of course he is, so Christ must not have suffered for his unbelief!
I know Christ died for MY sin because I repented, believe and as the bible says, I experience the witness of the Spirit within.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Jan 31, 2006 14:06:55 GMT -5
When Christ said to His disciples:
"Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven." Luke 10:20.
Was Judas among them?
|
|
|
Post by tomah on Jan 31, 2006 14:14:23 GMT -5
Whether he was or wasn't, it did not apply to him.
Do you EVER think that you MAY be wrong brother?
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Jan 31, 2006 15:06:36 GMT -5
I used to be a Calvinist brother. But the more I study the word of God as a whole, the more I see sinless perfection and conditional security.
Judas was there with the disciples when Jesus said "Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven." Luke 10:20. And Christ being the perfect teacher would not have left Judas with false comfort or false peace.
Both Judas and Peter betrayed the Lord. Sometimes we ignore that. But Peter was converted back, as Jesus said in Luke 22:32.
The word says that if you deny Christ He will deny you. If Peter had not been converted back, He would not have been saved. But praise God that He did turn back to God!
Peter is a perfect example to show that a Christian CAN backslide. His was not an accidental slip and fall into sin. He verbally denied Christ three times. But Peter is also a perfect example that a backslider can be converted back!
This is simple, biblically sound doctrine.
As the scriptures that we have already listed show, Christ died for the sins of the whole world. And He freely offers salvation to anyone who mets the conditions of repentance and faith.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jan 31, 2006 15:07:33 GMT -5
1Jo 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world.
EDIT:
OOPS! Sorry to post a scripture that has already been posted!
|
|
|
Post by tomah on Jan 31, 2006 15:14:31 GMT -5
People who are guilty of unbelief can only be forgiven if Christ died for THEIR unbelief, hence they get saved at some point and hence the elect. The point i made is clear. If Christ died for Judas' unbelief then why didn't Judas at some point believe before death? It would be unjust of God (against His nature) to punish two people for the same sin. If Christ suffered for Judas' unbelief, then is Judas suffering for his unbelief? Of course he is, so Christ must not have suffered for his unbelief! I know Christ died for MY sin because I repented, believe and as the bible says, I experience the witness of the Spirit within. I ask again brethren, does God punish for the same sin twice?
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Jan 31, 2006 15:21:19 GMT -5
If we do not accept the payment of Christs shed blood on the cross, then we ourselves will have to pay and shed our own blood.
|
|
|
Post by tomah on Jan 31, 2006 15:57:48 GMT -5
That is not what you're saying though because that is what I believe.
You said "Jesus died for all sin of all people."
if he died and paid the punishment for the sins of ALL people, then why should Gods justice demand that the sins of the unrepentant be paid for AGAIN? Christ died for OUR sins, the sins of those who repent. He CANNOT have died for the sins of those who go to hell because they go to hell to pay for the same sins! Thus, Christ only died for the sins of HIS people, the rest are punished for their own sins.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Jan 31, 2006 16:20:33 GMT -5
Heb 10:28-29 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?"
And so here is a man who was sanctified by the blood of the covenant, the blood of the Son of God, being destroyed because he later choose to continue in sin. This is someone in whom Christ died for, and WAS sanctified, later recieving the punishment for his own sin.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Jan 31, 2006 16:50:34 GMT -5
Armen,
If "limited atonement" is taught in the Word, then what do you have to say about the universal nature of Christ's death in the Scriptures we have listed (And there are MANY more)? Your questions seem to me to be more philosophical than biblical.
You are assuming that because Christ's death was sufficient to save all for whom he died, then it must save all for whom he died. This ignores the responsibility of man. Man must accept the free gift. If anyone refuses to accept the death of Christ as their own, then the benefit's of Christ's death are not applied to them. The unbeliever is condemned, not because Christ did not die for him, but because he refuses God's offer of forgiveness. We believe the death of Christ is universal in it's intention and scope, but limited in it's application.
|
|
|
Post by tomah on Jan 31, 2006 17:08:14 GMT -5
So by what you're saying Jesus didn't die of rour unbelief then?
Because election is so clear, the texts you quote relating to 'all, any, ungodly' etc I refer to 'family' texts. The like of John 3:16 is very simple, it says "WHOSOEVER believeth in him" in which the whosoever is the elect.
It seems we may have to call it quits here brethren, we don't seem to be progressing as I firmly believe this doctrine. Logically to me Unlimited atonement is impossible.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Jan 31, 2006 17:29:33 GMT -5
Armen, The question in John 3:16 is concerning the word "world". Do you believe that it means, "For God so loved the [elect] that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."? Norman F. Doutry, a 4-point Calvinist, dilligently searched out this question. He lists the following works: 1. Trench's Synonyms of the New Testament 2. Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament 3. Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words 4. Vincent's Word Studies in the New Testament 5. Robinson's A Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament 6. Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament 7. Berry's Interlinear Greek-English New Testament 8. Arndt-Gingrich's A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament 9. The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge 10. Hastings' Bible Dictionary and Dictionary of the Apostolic church 11. International Standard Bible Encyclopedia 12. Tasker's New Bible Dictionary 13. Everett F. Harrison in Baker's Dictionary of Theology 14. John D. Davis in his Dictionary of the Bible Then Doutry says, "But amid all the divisions and sub-divisions listed, the word [for world] is never said to denote 'the elect.' These lexicons know nothing of such a use of kosmos (Gk. for world) in the New Testament, under which to tabulate John 1:29; 3:16-18; 4:42; 6:33, 51; 12:47; 14:31;16:8-11; 17:21, 23; 2 Cor. 5:19; 1 John 2:2; 4:14." He then concludes, "All of this is disastrous for the advocates of Limited Atonement. They have ventured to set themselves above the combined scholarship of our lexicons, encylopedias and dictionaries, when they have ascribed a further signification to the word kosmos, which will support their theological system."
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Jan 31, 2006 17:35:59 GMT -5
Armen, How does your interpretation of 1 John 2:2 make any sense if "the whole world means" the elect? "He [Jesus] is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world." There is no way around the clear meaning of the verse. It is completely unwarranted to interpret it so as to fit a particular view of election. If that isn't scripture twisting, then I don't know what is. I ask if you are being honest to Scripture to interpret it to mean the elect. Also, I wrote: "A strong case for universal atonement can be made from Isaiah 53:6
"We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all."
Twice the word "all" appears in this verse. If the first is universal, then so is the second. Have some gone astray or have all?
This same point is emphasized in Romans 11:32
"For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all." In order to hold to limited atonement and the "family" interpretation you must also say that the scope of sinfulness in these passages refers only to the elect. Again I ask if that is really honest interpretation?
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Jan 31, 2006 20:49:34 GMT -5
Armen, You wrote, "If Christ died for ALL the sins of ALL people, then he couldn't have died for the sin of unbelief!!
If all men's unbelief has been paid for then then all sin has been forgiven - there is nothing left to forgive and we would then have universalism." and, "People who are guilty of unbelief can only be forgiven if Christ died for THEIR unbelief, hence they get saved at some point and hence the elect." According to your view everyone Jesus died for must be saved. We don't believe that is what Scripture teaches. We believe that is an asumption based on unconditional election. If you're going to interpret the universal passages by that assumption, then you must prove that it is Scriptural. Look again at 2 Peter 2:1 "But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves." Here it seems that Jesus paid for the sins of people who go to hell. Let me ask what I believe is a penetrating quesiton. Are there grounds for believing that, were it not for the prior acceptance of the theory of unconditional election, we should interpret the statements of universal atonement literally?
|
|