Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Is Limited Atonement Bibical? | NT general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 34531 | ||
Greetings John! I know how busy one can get! :-) I went to the site you mentioned. Here is what it said about Limited Atonement: ********************************************* Limited Atonement (Particular Redemption) Limited Atonement is a doctrine offered in answer to the question, "for whose sins did Christ atone?" The Bible teaches that Christ died for those whom God gave him to save (John 17:9). Christ died, indeed, for many people, but not all (Matthew 26:28). Specifically, Christ died for the invisible Church -- the sum total of all those who would ever rightly bear the name "Christian" (Ephesians 5:25). This doctrine often finds many objections, mostly from those who think that Limited Atonement does damage to evangelism. We have already seen that Christ will not lose any that the father has given to him (John 6:37). Christ's death was not a death of potential atonement for all people. Believing that Jesus' death was a potential, symbolic atonement for anyone who might possibly, in the future, accept him trivializes Christ's act of atonement. Christ died to atone for specific sins of specific sinners. Christ died to make holy the church. He did not atone for all men, because obviously all men are not saved. Evangelism is actually lifted up in this doctrine, for the evangelist may tell his congregation that Christ died for sinners, and that he will not lose any of those for whom he died! Source: www.reformed.org ************************************************* Notice the Scriptures that are used in this statement. a) John 17:9 - This verse deals with Jesus' prayer for His disciples. They are the ones who were given to Him from out of the world (v. 6). In verse 9, Jesus says that His praying for them, not for the world. No where in this passage does it say that He only atoned for the sins of some. Salvation is not even the context. b) Mt. 26:28 we have already dealt with. The word "many" is used in Romans 5 in a context which clearly indicates "all". Thus, "many" must not mean "some" as opposed to "all". c) Eph. 5:25 says that Christ died for the church, but it does not say that Jesus did not die for anyone else. The assumptions made from these verses simply don't line up with the clear inclusive statements of Scripture. a) 1 John 2:2 - " He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world." b) 1 John 4:14 - "And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world." c) John 1:29 - "The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, ‘‘Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!" d) John 4:42 - "They said to the woman, ‘‘We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world.”" e) 2 Cor. 5:19 - "that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation." If you do a search on "world" and "morant61", you will find a post I did a long time ago on how John uses the word "world" in his letters. Every single occurance is used as a reference to those who stand in opposition to God and hate Christians. Thus, "world" in 1 John 2:2 cannot mean "the elect all over the world". Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
2 | Is Limited Atonement Bibical? | NT general Archive 1 | John Reformed | 34543 | ||
Dear Tim, While I am considering your last post and looking up your post on the word world, please return to reformed .org, click on Calvinism on the menue and scroll past the abbreviated definitions for TULIP to The Five Points of Calvinism by R.L. Dabney which contains the link for his article.Once it has openend scroll to Section IV. Particular Redemption, which is the article I previously referred you to. I am anxious to read your reaction to Dabney's view on the topic. In the meanwhile you have given me much food for thought. Your Humble Servant, John |
||||||
3 | Is Limited Atonement Bibical? | NT general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 34559 | ||
Greetings John! Sorry about that! I thought I was on the right article. I haven't read the whole article yet, but I did read the section on particular redemption. I have two main problems with his statement: a) It is very short on Scripture. He mostly lays out his views and very seldom gives any Scripture (at least in this section). b) His whole argument is based not on Scripture, but on Calvinism. Consider the following quotes: 1) "I say this is exactly the answer for us Presbyterians to make, because we believe in God's universal predestination as certain and efficacious; so that the whole final outcome of his plan must be the exact interpretation of what his plan was at first. And this statement the Arminian also is bound to adopt, unless he means to charge God with ignorance, weakness, or fickleness" (Source - http://www.reformed.org/calvinism/5Points_Dabney.html) 2) "Hence, it is absolutely impossible for us to retain the dogma that Christ in design died equally for all. We are compelled to hold that he died for Peter and Paul in some sense in which he did not for Judas. No consistent mind can hold the Calvinistic creed as to man's total depravity towards God, his inability of will, God's decree, God's immutable attributes of sovereignty and omnipotence over free agents, omniscience and wisdom, and stops short of this conclusion. So much every intelligent opponent admits, and in disputing particular redemption, to this extent at least, he always attacks these connected truths as falling along with the other." (Source: http://www.reformed.org/calvinism/5Points_Dabney.html) Notice the logic of these two statements. We cannot believe in unlimited atonement, not because there is a verse which says that Christ did not die for all, but because our theology demands that we not believe in it. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||