Results 1 - 12 of 12
|
|
|||||
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 | zach† | 34392 | ||
Before I ask my question, I would first like to provide you with some personal back-ground information concerning myself. When I first received Christ into my heart and life, God instilled within me a hunger and a thirst to read His written word. I just couldn't get enough of it. I began attending a Reformed church, and adopted all their beliefs as my beliefs. I read Calvin, and others of the reformed faith, and was in unity with their thinking. But the more I read God's word and allowed God's Holy Spirit to teach me from His word, the harder and harder it became for me to any longer accept the teachings of Calvinism represented within TULIP. Today I especially have trouble accepting the "L" of TULIP which stands for "Limited Atonement" So my question is: Do you personally believe "Limited Atonement is Bibical, or not? And why not. What Scripture do you use to support your beliefs. I know this is a highly and hotly debated topic, but I think it is one that with some discipline on our part, can be fairly discussed In Christ zach† |
||||||
2 | Is Limited Atonement Bibical? | NT general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 34393 | ||
Greetings Zach†! In respect to my many brothers who differ on this issue, I do not believe that Limited Atonement is a Biblical doctrine. Some of the verses which illustrate an unlimited atonement are: 1) 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!" 2) John 3:16-17 - "‘‘For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him." 3) John 12:47 - "‘‘As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it." 4) 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." 5) 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." 6) Romans 5:6 - " You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly." 7) 2 Cor. 5:14-19 - " For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. 15 And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again. 16 So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer. 17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! 18 All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: 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." 8) 2 Peter 3:9 - "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." 9) 1 Tim. 2:3-4 - "This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth." 10) 1 Tim. 2:6 - " who gave himself as a ransom for all men—the testimony given in its proper time." 11) Heb. 2:9 - "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone." Note: The list of Scriptures above was taken from Norman Geisler's book, "Chosen but Free: A Balanced View of Election", pp. 200-211). The usual approach to these verses is to say that "all" doesn't really mean "all", and "everyone" doesn't really mean "everyone", and "world" doesn't really mean "world", but only the "elect". In contrast, I can't think of a single verse which says that Christ did not die for all! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
3 | Is Limited Atonement Bibical? | NT general Archive 1 | John Reformed | 34421 | ||
Dear Brother Tim, It is indeed a joy to be able to discuss the great doctrines of the faith with bretheren all over this nation(and the world,as far as I know. I must make my initial posting brief for other duties are calling me away. God willing we will all benefit as we attempt to determine the deep truths of His Word. In regard to your last remark "I can't think of a single verse etc", You may have overlooked Matt 26:28. God Bless us all, John Adams |
||||||
4 | Is Limited Atonement Bibical? | NT general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 34439 | ||
Greetings John! Thanks for the input! Does the word "many" exclude any? Consider Rom. 5:15! Did "all" die as a result of Adam's sin or did just some? How about Rom. 5:19? Were "all" made sinners or just some? My point is simple. There are plenty of Scriptures where 'many' obviously means 'all'. It seems to be a term of expansion, not limitation. We have plenty of verses which say that Christ died for all, everyone, the world. Is there one verse which specifically says that Christ didn't die for some? To apply this to Mt. 28:26, we would have to assume that "many" means "not all". Even though, it though it is used in Romans to indicate all. Just some thoughts! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
5 | Is Limited Atonement Bibical? | NT general Archive 1 | John Reformed | 34448 | ||
Thanks Brother Tim, Your point concerning Matt 28:26 is well taken. This is what I especially enjoy about this forum that Our Gracious Lord has provided. It drives one into the scriptures to search out the essence of His truth. Tim, I am discovering that the closer I come to His truth the more I love both God and man. Perhaps our ongoing discussion will result in a love feast. May God grant it Let us reason together, that is Tim, John,all others who wish to and God Almighty our source of all things. As you can tell from my postings, I am neither a teacher nor a scholar. Nevertheless here I am and these are my thoughts concerning the topic of Limited Atonement that Brother Zacht put forth and asked us to comment upon. Before we go any further I believe for the sake of clarity that we define our terms. There has existed quite a bit of confusion over the precise understanding of what Limited Atonement means. I feel it is absolutely necessary for us to first agree upon it's definition. I humbly submit that we use Easton's Bible Dictionary definition. you can find it online at www.bible.gateway.com EAB:The meaning of the word (atonement) is simply at-one-ment,i.e., the state of being at one or being reconciled, so that atonement is reconcilliation. Thus it is used to denote the effect that flows from the death of Christ. By Limited, my understanding is (my Reformed brethren's input is welcomed here) that it refers to those who by faith have believed in Christ. Good Night to all. John(Reformed)Adams |
||||||
6 | Is Limited Atonement Bibical? | NT general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 34489 | ||
Greetings John! Are you related to the former president? :-) We will be hard pressed to come up with a short, or easy, definition of 'Atonement'. I don't really like the "at-one-ment" approach. The basic meaning seems to be: "the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ on the cross, whereby He appeased God's wrath and reconciled the world to Himself." I'm sure I have left something out of this definition, but I tried! :-) All of the verses which deal with the atonement make it universal in extent. It was for all men. Again, there simply aren't any verses which say that He did not atone for some, thus I can't accept a limited atonement. It is good though to have a new friend on the forum. Don't put yourself down! Your posts have been well written. I look forward to interacting with you more in the future. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
7 | Is Limited Atonement Bibical? | NT general Archive 1 | John Reformed | 34507 | ||
Dear Tim, It seems to me absolutely necessary that we define precisely what the term Limited Atonement means to Refomed Christians. From my initial research; I have learned that this doctrine has suffered much prejudice due to a misunderstanding of what the reformed mean by limited atonement. It is my hope that those who have a sincere disire to understand the actual definition, will take the time to read that which the refomed themseves claim the meaning to be. Afterall, should not our definition be the standard by which the debate be guided. Your Thoughts Tim John PS: I'm not related (except thru Adam)to the former great president, but count myself fortunate to share his name. |
||||||
8 | Is Limited Atonement Bibical? | NT general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 34515 | ||
Greetings John! I tried to access your link, from the previous post, but was unable to get to it. Do you have a definition? If so, by all means share it with us. In fairness though, the choices don't seem that difficult concerning the extent of the atonement. Either Jesus atoned for all the sins of everyone or He only atoned for all the sins of some, or He did not atone for the sins of any. I have never seen a verse which says that He only atoned for all the sins of some! John Murray, Pofessor of Systematic Theology at Westminister Theological Seminary defines Limited Atonement in this way: "Whether the expression 'limited atonement' is good or not, we must reckon with the fact that unless we believe in the final restoration of all men we cannot have an unlimited atonement. If we universalise the extent we limit the efficacy. If some of those for whom atonement was made and redemption wrought perish eternally, then the atonement is not itself efficacious. It is this alternative that the proponents of universal atonement must face. The have a 'limited' atonement, and limited in respect of that which impinges upon its essential character. We shall have none of it. The doctrine of 'limited atonement' which we maintain is the doctrine whch limits the atonement to those who are heirs of eternal life, to the elect. That limitation insures its efficacy and conserves its essential character as efficient and effective redemption." (John Murray, Redemption - Accomplished and Applied, p. 74). The problems with this definition are as follows: 1) It assumes unconditional election to salvation and reprobation. 2) It assumes that atonement can only be either unlimited in extent, but limited in efficacy, or limited in extent, but unlimited in efficacy. There is a third option - an atonement which is sufficent for all men, but efficient only for the elect. (Robert Shank, Elect in the Son, p. 71). 3) It ignores the fact that not a single Scripture limits the atonement only to the elect. This is a reformed definition. There are others I am sure. Personally, I reject any definition of the atonement which denies that Christ died for the sins of the whole world (1 Jn. 2:2). Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
9 | Is Limited Atonement Bibical? | NT general Archive 1 | John Reformed | 34526 | ||
Dear Tim, I am sicerely gratified by your responses. I could probably spend the entire day joyfully exploring God's Word with you. I work out of my home however and must force myself back to the business of earning my daily bread. So if at times my communications seem brief or incomplete, please chalk it up to that. I have been reading R.L Dabneys paper on the 5 Points of Calvinism. You may find it by going to www.reformed.org. Click on Five Point of Calvinism found in the menue on the left side of page. Scroll down to Dabney's article. No need to read all 5 points just scroll to the heading Particular Redemption. God Bless, John |
||||||
10 | 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 |
||||||
11 | 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 |
||||||
12 | 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 |
||||||