Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Is Limited Atonement a "scandalous" Doc | NT general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 34800 | ||
Greetings John! Excellent post my friend! The only part I would disagree with is the assumption that unlimited atonement means universal salvation. Those who believe in an unlimited atonement do not believe that everyone will be saved, but only those who receive the gift of reconcilition. Consider the following two passages: 1) 2 Cor. 5:11-20: In this passage, Paul makes several very important observations about reconciliation (atonement). a) In v. 14, he says that Christ died for all. b) In v. 19, he says that God was reconciling the world to Himself in Christ. c) In v.19, he also says that this reconcilation of the world meant that their sins were no longer counted against them. d) In v. 20, Paul says that God is making His appeal through the ministry of reconcilation. e) In v. 20, Paul gives the content of the message, "Be reconciled". From this, it is clear to me that reconciliation (atonement) is an objective act done for the sins of every man, woman, and child who ever has or ever will live. All find forgiveness in the cross. However, it is also clear that this reconcilation must be received. If reconciliation is complete without our acceptance, how come the appeal by God? How come the command to be reconciled? If the doctrine of limited atonement were true, there would be no need for such an appeal. Those who are elect are atoned for, end of story. There are other passages that tie our acceptance of Christ's act to our reception of it. Consider the following passage: 2) Rom. 5:17: "For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ." The whole passage is excellent for this topic, but for now, lets just focus on this verse. The whole passage contrasts and compares the sin of Adam with the death of Christ. Just as Adam's sin brought death on all men, so also Christ's death brings the possibility of life for all men. However, it must be received. Look at v. 17. The ones who reign in life as a result of Christ's death are those, and only those, who receive the gift of righteousness. Therefore, reconcilation is not the same as salvation. As someone else pointed out earlier (Zach† I believe), Salvation includes many things (Justification, sanctification, and glorification to name a few). The atonement make salvation possible. But, it has to be received through faith and repentance. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
2 | Is Limited Atonement a "scandalous" Doc | NT general Archive 1 | John Reformed | 34937 | ||
Dear Tim, My first response to this post was sent in haste and did not address fully the questions and conclusions that were included in it. In fact it is only now that I have the time available to devote to it the attention it deserves. My understanding of "all" in 2 Cor 5:14 is all thr elect. I base this on 2 Cor 1:1, which informs me who Paul is addressing: the church of God in Corinth and the saints in Achaia. To conclude that "all" refers to all mankind, does not seem to be supported given the context. v. 19 "God was reconcilling the world to Himself in Christ". This verse is a more difficult one to understand. (This is one of the reasons I love this forum, we are driven not merely read scipture but to dig deeper into it, emploring God The Holy Spirit to enlighten our understanding!) "Reconcile" here is in the form of a verb indicating an action or a process, not an accompished fact. Therefore, I am not persuaded to accept it as supporting your proposition that it supports unlimited atonement. If I am following your train of thought correctly, I would anticipate your reply to me to be that; God was reconcilling the world to Himself in Christ and it was accomplished when on the cross Jesus said "It is finished". Tim, Please correct me if I'm wrong in this assumption. I ask myself, is that what he meant? Had He been successful in reconcilling all of mankind to God? Or maybe He meant that He had been successful to the extent that He made reconciliation possible for all the world. Does Jesus mean by "it is finshed" that, He has accomplished all the Father has sent Him to do, and now it is up to the free will choice of mankind to appropriate reconciliation for themselves? The position of the Refomers based on their understanding of Scripture is that when Jesus died on the cross He sucessfuly obtained reconciliation for every person that the Father had sent Him to atone for. Hence, Atonement is limited to the exact number of the elect and when the very last one of those number are brought into The Kingdom of God the end of this age will come. I will attempt to support my conclusion and address your other questins to me with specific scripture in my next post to you Tim. God Bless You and Yours(even now one of mine has something for me to do) John |
||||||
3 | Is Limited Atonement a "scandalous" Doc | NT general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 34955 | ||
Greetings John! Thanks for the response my new friend! I too love the dialogue which takes place on the forum. Let me respond to your two main points in reverse order. 1) Reconciliation: Process or Completed Action! If we only had v. 19, I would agree with you that ‘reconciliation’ should be viewed as a process. V. 19 says, "that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, …". The verb ‘reconciling’ is a present, active, participle. Thus, it could be viewed as either a process or a continuing action. However, this is not the case in v. 18. V. 18 says, "All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation:". Here, the verb ‘reconciled’ is an aorist, active, participle. This refers to a point of action completed at sometime in the past. Thus, it cannot refer to a process, but only to complete action. Why the difference in the two verbs? It would be appropriate to look at the totality of Christ’s incarnation, ministry, life, and death and describe it all as the process that God was using to reconcile us to Him. But, as you correctly anticipated, all of that ‘process’ was completed at the cross. Thus, looking back, it is a completed action. This seems to be only way to harmonize the two different tenses of the participles. 2) The Meaning of ‘all’! Here is my approach to interpreting words like ‘all’, ‘everyone’, and ‘anyone’. These are universal terms which can only be limited by either additional words or the immediate context. For instance, if Jesus were to say, "You are my disciple, and all of you were chosen by Me!" Here, the context clearly limits ‘all’ to each disciple. You said that you feel that Christ is only referring to all the ‘elect’. However, there is no mention of the elect in this passage. Indeed, this passage is in harmony with Rom. 5. There, Paul compares the extent of Adam’s sin with Christ’s death. a) Rom. 5:12 - "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned—" Question: Does ‘all’ here refer to each individual? I think we all (no pun intended) would agree that it does. b) Yet, Rom. 5:18 says, "18 Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men." Question: Does ‘all’ here refer to each individual? It must! The comparison itself demands it. The context demands it. There is no other word here that limits ‘all’ in anyway. The only limitation, as it 2 Cor. 5, is the demand of Calvinism that Christ did not die for all. Now, does this mean that ‘all’ will be saved? No! Even Rom. 5 makes this perfectly clear. Rom. 5:17 says, "For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ." Thus, the gift of righteousness must be received. It does not automatically apply to each individual. This harmonizes with 2 Cor. 5 as well. There, Paul says that God was reconciling to world to Himself through Christ. But, in verse 20, Paul commands us to "be reconciled". Why? Because the cross made reconciliation possible for each individual, but it must be received or accepted before it applies to an individual. Else, why would Paul command us "to be reconciled"? This is getting long, so let my post my concluding remarks in a second post! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
4 | Is Limited Atonement a "scandalous" Doc | NT general Archive 1 | John Reformed | 35149 | ||
Dear Tim, I have learned that I had mistakenly referred to atonement as a process. According to Easton's Bible Dictionery, atonement is an effect rendered thru Christ's sacrifice. That definition more precisely represents calvinistic soteriology. Brother John |
||||||