Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | Makarios | 5480 | ||
I believe that the doctrine of unlimited atonement is the scriptural view, and there are numerous verses that support it. In Luke 19:10, the "lost" refers to the collective whole of humanity, not just to the lost elect. In John 1:29, what is "the world" here? The world represents humanity in its fallen state, alienated from its Maker. Reformer John Calvin says of this verse, "When he says the sin of the world, he extends this favor indiscriminately to the whole human race." Though Calvin is often cited in favor of limited atonement, here is a clear statement in which unlimited atonement is his view. In John 3:16, it is critical to observe that John 3:16 cannot be divorced from the context this is set in verses 14 and 15, wherein Christ alludes to Numbers 21. In this passage Moses is seen setting up the brazen serpent in the camp of Israel, so that if "any man" looked to it, he experienced physical deliverance. In verse 15 Christ applies the story spiritually when He says that 'everyone who' believes on the uplifted Son of Man shall experience spiritual deliverance.In John 4:42, it is quite certain that when the Samaritans called Jesus "the Savior of the world," they were not thinking of the world of the elect.1 Timothy 4:10 shows a clear distinction between "all men" and "those who believe". Apparently the Savior has done something for all human beings, although it is less in degree than what He has done for those who believe. In other words, Christ has made a provision of salvation for all men, though it only becomes effective for those who exercise faith in Christ.Hebrews 2:9 contains the word 'everyone'. However, this word (Greek - pantos) is better translated 'each'. Why use the word pantos (each) rather than panton (all)? The singular brings out more emphatically the applicability of Christ's death to each individual human being. Christ tasted death for every single person. Romans 5:6 says 'ungodly'. It doesn't make much sense to read this as saying that Christ died for the ungodly among the elect. Rather the verse, read plainly, indicates that Christ died for all the ungodly of the earth.Romans 5:18, says "all men". Commenting on this verse, Calvin said, "Though Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and is offered through God's benignity indiscriminately to all, yet all do not receive Him". This sounds very much like Calvin was teaching unlimited atonement.1 John 2:2, Isaiah 53:6, and John 3:17 state CLEARLY that God has made the provision of salvation available to all human beings. In 2 Peter 2:1, we are told that Christ even paid the penalty of redemption for false teachers who deny Him. This passage seems to point out quite clearly that people for whom Christ died may be lost; there is a distinction between those for whom Christ died and those who are finally saved. In keeping with the above verses, there are also many verses which indicate that the gospel is to be universally proclaimed to all human beings.Matthew 24:14 "And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come"Matthew 28:19 "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"Acts 1:8 "But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth" (NIV)In view of such passages, it is legitimate to ask, if Christ died only for the elect, how can an offer of salvation be made to all persons without some sort of insincerity, artificiality, or dishonesty being involved in the process? Is it not improper to offer salvation to everyone if in fact Christ did not die to save everyone? The fact is, those who hold to limited atonement cannot say to any sinner with true conviction, "Christ died for you".How then, do we put the 'limited' and 'unlimited' verses together so that, taken as a whole, all verses are interpreted in a harmonious way without contradicting each other? I believe that seemingly restrictive references can be logically fit into an unlimited scenario much more easily than universal references can be made to fit into a limited atonement scenario. The two sets of passages-one seemingly in support of limited atonement, the other in support of unlimited atonement- are not irreconciable. While it is true that the benefits of Christ's death are referred to as belonging to God's 'sheep', His 'people' and the like, it would have to be shown that Christ died only for them in order for limited atonement to be true. No one denies that Christ died for God's 'sheep' and His 'people'. It is only denied that Christ died exclusively for them. Certainly if Christ died for the whole of humanity, there is no logical problem in saying that He died for a specific part of the whole. | ||||||
2 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | homer7000 | 5487 | ||
Isaiah 53:11.....How can Christ be satisfied in His atoning work if it is not going to accomplish His purpose? The Arminian/free willers actually limit the atonement more than the calvinist/sovereign grace folks. If it's left up to us, o what limitations are placed to the atoning work of our blessed Saviour. Let's not attempt to tie the hands of the Almighty please. |
||||||
3 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | Makarios | 5530 | ||
Believing in unlimited atonement by no means attempts to 'tie the hands of the Almighty'! I am not saying that Christ's work is in any way 'limited' or that there are 'limitations' for Him. There are not any hindrances or limitations for Jesus Christ. (Isaiah 55:11) Therefore, by supporting 'unlimited atonement' (that Christ died for the godly and the ungodly, for everyone), I am in no way saying or supporting: 1) That Christ wasted His time and lacked foresight by dying for those whom He had not chosen to salvation (Eph. 1), 2) That Christ is defeated if He died for all men and all men aren't saved, 3) That Christ has paid in full the sins of those that will be lost, 4) That Christ's prayer in John 17 was only for the elect. I hope that you are not misunderstanding what I am trying to say here: I do not support any of the above things, and there is no limit to Christ and His word, of fulfilling and succeeding in the matter that He sent it (Isaiah 55:11).To answer the above statements: Christ showed the ultimate foresight and wisdom by dying for all of man's sin on the cross so that not only could He release all humanity from the bondage of sin and provide, for each and every human being, a 'way out' of sin, but he could render judgment upon satan forever, who stands to accuse us as he makes war against those who believe in Christ. You see, Christ had to make this option, a choice to live- the Way to salvation, available to every single human being so that we could have the will to accept or to decline His lordship in our lives. How could the Lord single out certain people that He died for if He is 'no respecter of persons'? (Acts 10:34). It does not matter who you are or where you live, you have the option to accept Jesus Christ and live and reign forever with Him in paradise. The problem is, is that people do not realize that this 'choice' should not be taken 'lightly' and that they should not continue to live for themselves in this world (and so reject Christ) but to live for Christ (and so become one of the elect). Few are chosen (Matt. 7:14), but it is God's desire that more would find this Way of life and turn to Him (Luke 15:1-7). We must not lose sight of His love for us. He does not want us to perish! In this way, he has given every man every chance, every opportunity to come to Him, he died for every man's sins! But man is the one who makes the tragic, conscious choice to reject God, even though God knew beforehand who would reject Him (Luke 22:21-23) but He had His hand out, extended to the one who would reject Him (giving him every chance possible), even though God knew in His sovereignty beforehand who would reject Him. And even though He knows, I have to imagine that this breaks His heart! Do these people realize just what they are doing by turning away from Him? How can Jesus show His ultimate love for humankind if He has not extended to every man and woman who has ever been born the opportunity of salvation by dying for every person's sins? However, if people reject Him and His free gift to all humankind, then they will have chosen not to accept this free gift of Christ and they will die in their own sins. They will have revoked this offer, making Christ's offer void to them at the time of death, making it impossible for Christ to cover over their sins because they did not accept His free gift. So in rejection of Christ's gift, then yes, the atonement is then 'limited' because of man's choice. But Christ has made this choice free for all men to potentially accept, therefore making the offer of this atonement 'unlimited'. For if He had not made it open and free to everyone to accept, then satan would not stand condemned, since satan then could claim ownership of those whom Christ did not die for. In this way, Jesus has obtained the keys to both sin and death and pronounced victory over satan for all time by defeating him at the cross and making salvation possible for every human by dying for every human being's sins, and not just for those who will accept His free gift. | ||||||
4 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | Reformer Joe | 5712 | ||
The problem here is that you are taking it as axiomatic that unregenerate man in any way has the ability to "choose God," that he is morally free to do so. Please show us in Scripture where it declares that man's will is free in this regard. Therefore, you seem to be interpreting Scripture in any way possible to protect this idea that man is free to choose, which I hold to be refuted soundly by Romans 3:10-18 and John 6 and Romans 9. Christ died not to OFFER payment of sins to all men, but to become sin for us (2 Corinthians 5:21), to die in our place (Galatians 2:20). Nowhere in the Bible do we see that he is a "hypothetical redeemer" or a "propitiation in theory." Your entire re-hashing of Norman Geisler does nothing but say that Jesus' death on the cross was incomplete in some fashion. Either Christ atoned for MY sin on the cross, undergoing the just wrath of God for MY sin, or he did not. It is not up to me to decide 2,000 years later whose sin Christ paid for. That is so undermining to the very biblical notion of God's freedom and sovereignty, and only exists to support the very unbiblical notion of man's unlimited moral freedom and sovereignty concerning salvation. Try to look at these Scriptures without the assumption that humans are morally capable of choosing to follow Christ (whether unaided or merely "wooed" by the Holy Spirit), and see if the freedom of man's will can be exegeted from the Bible. It is God who chooses, the Son who dies for those who are chosen, and the Holy Spirit who regenerates the chosen and causes them to believe in the Son who died in their place. The unsaved are completely left out of the salvation scenario. The unsaved are not chosen by God, and therefore they will justly suffer for all eternity for their own sins, since Christ did not pay for them on the cross. Any other scenario breaks down when carried to its logical conclusion. We end up with either universalism, an impotent God, or the penalty for sin being paid for by Christ AND the unbeliever. --Joe! |
||||||
5 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | Makarios | 5858 | ||
Joe, there are numerous exhortations in Scripture to turn to God (Isaiah 31:6, Joel 2:13, Acts 3:19 for example) to repent (Matthew 3:2, Luke 13:3,5, Acts 2:38, 17:30), and to believe (John 6:29, Acts 16:31, 1 John 3:23). So why would God waste his time with us living our lives if man's will wasn't free in this regard? Scripture indicates that 'election' is based on God's foreknowledge of who would respond positively to such exhortations (Romans 8:28-30, 1 Peter 1:1).I am not interpreting Scripture in every way possible just to back up my point. I could accuse you of the same thing. And Romans 3:10-18, John 6 and Romans 9 do not refute the idea of man's free will. Please show me in these verses where it 'soundly' says so.I really don't understand what you mean by "propitiation in theory", but in Scripture, Christ died for and has appeared to all men, not merely the elect (Titus 2:11, 1 Timothy 2:6, 4:10, Hebrews 2:9, 1 John 2:2).As for Norman Giesler, I don't even know the guy! And it is not for us to determine who Christ died for, since it is clear that Christ died for all, the righteous and the unrighteous, so that we would have the opportunity to choose Him. Try to look at Scripture and see where it says that God cares for and loves all men (John 3:16) and sent His Son to die for all, being the perfect Sacrifice, once for all. If I have knowledge but not love, have I gained anything? God does not create people to hate them. This simple fact will refute your theories of predestination and show how flawed and incomplete they really are. | ||||||