Results 1741 - 1760 of 1773
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: John Reformed Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1741 | Is Limited Atonement Bibical? | NT general Archive 1 | John Reformed | 35323 | ||
Hi Joe, I am in comlete agreement with your position. I would appreciate it if you could find the time to examine some of my posts in reply to Zacht's question regarding the Scriptual foundation on Limited Atonrment. It would be of great help to have a fellow calvinist critique my reasoning. Looking forward to hearing from you, John |
||||||
1742 | Is Limited Atonement Bibical? | NT general Archive 1 | John Reformed | 35318 | ||
Dear Hank, Thank you for taking the time to read my post! I hope you will choose to participate more fully. Hank, I too believe in the perspicuity of Scripture. I believe that God intended it for the unlearned as well as the learned. However, and I'm certain that you would agree that, not all of Scripture is easy to understand. At least not for me. But thanks be to God, He has provided for our weaknesses by sending the Holy Spirit to help in our infirmities and we can call upon Him to lead us in our search for the knowledge of God and of His Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ. He has also, in His providence, "given some to be teachers" and I often have found occasion to praise Him for that as well. I am also of the belief, that ultimate authority regarding the interpretation of Scripture is Scripture itself. Any degree of authority that a man may possess is limited to the degree that it is in harmony with what God has said in His Word. We are all aware of the damage that can occur when a verse is taken out of context. I am sorry to say, but I have been guilty of this myself. It is a problem that all of us need to be mindful of. I believe this happens when we force a portion of Scripture to support our own desired interpretation or that of our particular tradition. I hear it all the time from unbelievers " You Christians can't even agree among yourselves what it is the Bible teaches". I usually explain that it is not the Bible that errs but that it is the fault of His imperfect servants. I have profited much thru the ministry of The Westminster Confession of Faith. One of it's precepts is: "All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them".(Chapt. 1) Of further assistance, from the same Chapter: "The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture, is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it may be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly". That is what, by God's grace, the guideline I will be following. God Bless Hank, John |
||||||
1743 | Is Limited Atonement Bibical? | NT general Archive 1 | John Reformed | 35312 | ||
Dear Brother Zacht, I am indebted to Tim in more ways than one. Tim's First post to you in response to your question, "Is Limited Atonement Biblical", has formed the basis for my reply. Tim listed a number of scriptures to support his arguement in opposition to this doctrine. I have been attempting, in my own poor way, to answer Tim's interpretation by offering questions that challenge his position and by providing Scripture that support Limited Atonement. My primary goal is to show that the doctrine is indeed Biblical (Scriptual), by setting forth those Scriptures that stand in support of This doctrine. Secondly, I hope to prove that the opposing position (Unconditional Atonement) is the one which is not supported by scripture. The primary benefit I hope to see happen is, that those who participate in this debate and those who watch from the sidelines will be inspired to look at their own beliefs and subject them to the test of the Scriptures themselves. In that way all win. God Bless Brother John |
||||||
1744 | Is Limited Atonement Bibical? | NT general Archive 1 | John Reformed | 35263 | ||
Dear Tim, I finaly have time to address the Scripture proofs you use as an arguement against Limited Atonement. I now have a clearer understanding of the doctrine than before so, thanks to you and my other brethren. 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!". John could not mean by the term "world" everyone, for then everyone would be saved by the virtue of the the fact, that Christ took away sin by bearing it in His own body on the tree. Knowing that there are people who will be damned in the end, I can only conclude that John's use of "world" in this verse,must refer to a particular group of people, namely the Elect, who through grace recieve the gift of faith. "Eph 2:8,9 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast". 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". If we deduce from John that God sent His Son to save the entire world, but not all responded, leads inexorably to the conclusion that Jesus had failed in the work which The Father had sent Him to perform. Now, none of us believe that Christ is capable of failure. We believe His work was perfect. Was His mission to save the world or to save His People? John 5:36 "But the testimony which I have is greater than the testimony of John; for the works which the Father has given Me to accomplish--the very works that I do--testify about Me, that the Father has sent Me",and John 10:37 "If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me". Jesus Claims to have accomplished all that the Father sent Him to do! It is plain that John 3:16,17 is the closest thing to a mission statement thay we have. Nowhere is it implied that God sent His only begotten Son to make people salvable, on the contrary, Jesus saves. Matt 1:21 "She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins". Notice the verb is "will save", not try to save, not offer to save, not attempt to woo. It clearly states Christ's intention to save HIS PEOPLE! Who are His people if not those who are called? 8:29 "For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren" and Rom 8:30 "and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified". It seems to me that God is the initiator and the finisher of our salvation. Can it be possible that God Almighty lacks the power to bring a sinner to salvation? Can the fallen will of a man triumph over his Creator? No, No, No. Ps 18:46 "The LORD lives, and blessed be my rock; And exalted be the God of my salvation,". Eph 1:4 " just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love". He chose us! Before we were born. Eph 1:5 " He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will". Thats according to the kind intention of HIS will, not man's will. To God be the Glory! I believe I have begun to lay down a Scriptual foundation for Limited Atonement. For those who who are interested in a scholarly work, let me know, I would gladly provide you with the resouces I have leaned on. I'll continue on my next post. God Bless Tim, John |
||||||
1745 | Is Limited Atonement Bibical? | NT general Archive 1 | John Reformed | 35151 | ||
Dear Brother Zacht, As you have probably noticed, I have been posting the majority of my resooses to Tim Moran. In no way was this meant to be a slight to you. I am a "newbie" to the forum and I hope you will chalk up my apparent discourtesy to my ignorance of proper protocal. I am very grateful that you posed this question for it has proved to be a tremendous benefit to me personally. In my attempt to defend the scriptual basis of Limited Atonement, I discovered holes in my own understanding of it. If it appears as if I have shifted ground somewhat from my earlier posts on the topic, it is because I was made aware of my mistakes and have been trying to discover the truth and praying for the enlightenment that Christ has promised us: John 8:32 "and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free." God bless you bother Zacht, John "John Refomed" Adams |
||||||
1746 | 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 |
||||||
1747 | Is Limited Atonement a "scandalous" Doc | NT general Archive 1 | John Reformed | 35146 | ||
Dear Tim, Thanks to you and other friends my understanding of Limited Atonement has been greatly enhanced. I especially praise our Gracious God who gives us all good things! I have thus far been attempting to formulate my own interpretation of the doctrine in question and have been frustrated because of my own imperfect understanding. Therefore I would like to put forward a definition that comes from a source that, to put it mildly, is far more reliable than myself. It is my hope that it will be recieved as the definition upon which all further discussion can proceed. My contentionan all along has been that, because Limeted Atonement is a doctrine of the Reformed church, that that those who are called upon to prove or defend it must be permited to state for themselves that which they believe to be their correct position. I believe the following to be that which a majority of my reformed bretheren would concur to be an acceptible definition. Easton's Bible Dictionary Atonement: This word does not occur in the Authorized Version of the New Testament except in Romans 5:11, where in the Revised Version the word "reconciliation" is used. In the Old Testament it is of frequent occurrence. The meaning of the word is simply at-one-ment, i.e., the state of being at one or being reconciled, so that atonement is reconciliation. Thus it is used to denote the effect which flows from the death of Christ. But the word is also used to denote that by which this reconciliation is brought about, viz., the death of Christ itself; and when so used it means satisfaction, and in this sense to make an atonement for one is to make satisfaction for his offences (Exodus 32:30; Leviticus 4:26; 5:16; Numbers 6:11), and, as regards the person, to reconcile, to propitiate God in his behalf. By the atonement of Christ we generally mean his work by which he expiated our sins. But in Scripture usage the word denotes the reconciliation itself, and not the means by which it is effected. When speaking of Christ's saving work, the word "satisfaction," the word used by the theologians of the Reformation, is to be preferred to the word "atonement." Christ's satisfaction is all he did in the room and in behalf of sinners to satisfy the demands of the law and justice of God. Christ's work consisted of suffering and obedience, and these were vicarious, i.e., were not merely for our benefit, but were in our stead, as the suffering and obedience of our vicar, or substitute. Our guilt is expiated by the punishment which our vicar bore, and thus God is rendered propitious, i.e., it is now consistent with his justice to manifest his love to transgressors. Expiation has been made for sin, i.e., it is covered. The means by which it is covered is vicarious satisfaction, and the result of its being covered is atonement or reconciliation. To make atonement is to do that by virtue of which alienation ceases and reconciliation is brought about. Christ's mediatorial work and sufferings are the ground or efficient cause of reconciliation with God. They rectify the disturbed relations between God and man, taking away the obstacles interposed by sin to their fellowship and concord. The reconciliation is mutual, i.e., it is not only that of sinners toward God, but also and pre-eminently that of God toward sinners, effected by the sin-offering he himself provided, so that consistently with the other attributes of his character his love might flow forth in all its fulness of blessing to men. The primary idea presented to us in different forms throughout the Scripture is that the death of Christ is a satisfaction of infinite worth rendered to the law and justice of God (q.v.), and accepted by him in room of the very penalty man had incurred. It must also be constantly kept in mind that the atonement is not the cause but the consequence of God's love to guilty men (John 3:16; Romans 3:24,25; Ephesians 1:7; 1 John 1:9; 4:9). The atonement may also be regarded as necessary, not in an absolute but in a relative sense, i.e., if man is to be saved, there is no other way than this which God has devised and carried out (Exodus 34:7; Joshua 24:19; Psalms 5:4; 7:11; Nahum 1:2,6; Romans 3:5). This is God's plan, clearly revealed; and that is enough for us to know. As you can see Tim, atonement is understood by calvists to be an effect of Christ's sacrifice. Viewed as such the inexorable conclusion of those who hold that opinion must be that atonement itself is granted only to those who have benefited by the sacrifice (expiation). I went to long, will send followup. John |
||||||
1748 | Is Limited Atonement a "scandalous" Doc | NT general Archive 1 | John Reformed | 34970 | ||
Dear Brother Tim, despite our differing views, I have no doubt but that we will both spend eternity together in the presence of our glorious Lord and Redeemer Jesus Christ. I am deeply appreciate of the love you have shown toward me thru your labor on my behalf. You have not only contributed to my education in hermenutics, but have set an example of how christian brothers are to treat oneanother. I will peruse your posts with as much openmindedness and honesty as the grace of God provides this feeble sinner. I'm leaving now to meet my family for dinner and must stop. Thank you Tim, John |
||||||
1749 | 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 |
||||||
1750 | Is Limited Atonement Bibical? | NT general Archive 1 | John Reformed | 34869 | ||
Dear Ben, I have no problem with any of the sciptures you quoted, because the Reformed have always said that Christ's Sacrifice on the cross was sufficent to save each and every person who ever existed or who will ever exist. However only those who trust in Christ will have their sins atoned for as a result of His shed blood. That is the reason that the doctrine calls the atonement limited. It is limited by the number of people whom God has elected unto salvation. Those who argue against Limited Atonement are really arguing against Unconditional Election, Which is another doctrine I would be happy to discuss if someone brought it up. God Bless Benjamite, John |
||||||
1751 | Is Limited Atonement Bibical? | NT general Archive 1 | John Reformed | 34802 | ||
Dear Benjamin, I believe the problem most christians have with Limited Atonement is caused by confusion over the term itself. Pehaps that is why there are so many different names for this doctrine, Particular Redemption, General Atonement, Definite Atonement and probably some others I am not aware of. Maybe we can blame the fellow who originated the acrostic TULIP! I would appreciate it if you would take a critical look at what I have posted thus far regarding this topic, and let me know if I'm missing something (My marbles maybe?). God Bless, John |
||||||
1752 | Is Limited Atonement a "scandalous" Doc | NT general Archive 1 | John Reformed | 34794 | ||
Dear Searcher, I apologize for neglecting to include a scripture verse supporting my arguement for Limited Atonement. I'm still learning how to use this wonderfull forum that God has provided. I'll try to be more carefull in the future. Matthew 25:41 "Then He will also say to those on the left hand, Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels". Matt 25:41 supports my contention that all are not saved. If all of mankind are saved (Thru having their sins atoned for), then to whom is Jesus referring in this verse, "depart from me, you cursed"? Limited Atonement is really a doctrine that puts the lie to Universal Salvation, the idea that all mankind shall be saved, and that no one will suffer eternal damnation. I have been trying my best to explain that the term Atonement means RECONCILIATION! Sorry, but I feel that if I do not shout it, some folks just won't hear me. Now we know if all were reconciled to God then all would have peace, but all are not reconciled, therefore the number of those saved is LIMITED. Agree? Disagree? Your Brother John Reformed, G.E.D. Don't rely on my poor scholorship (although I do posess a High School G.E.D. diploma), check your favorite bible dictionary and I'm confident it will confirm the definition I set forth. |
||||||
1753 | Is Limited Atonement a "scandalous" Doc | NT general Archive 1 | John Reformed | 34635 | ||
Dear Saints, In my postings thus far I have been attempting to show that the reformed doctrine of Limited Atonement is indeed biblical. I have found it to have been a profitable use of my time and I hope you all have profited as well. I've gained new insight regarding this doctrine and in other areas of Scipture as well. I have learned that much,if not all, the controversy surrounding this "scandalous" doctrine is founded on a fundamental misunderstanding regarding the term ATONEMENT. This misunderstanding seems to have been in existance for at least 140 years. In the course of my research I happened across a theologian by the name of R.L Dabney. It seems that brother Dabney was the chaplain to Stonewall Jackson during the War Between the States. Dabney in his article " The Five Points of Calvinism contends that the problem arises from a confusion over the definition of the term "atonement". This fundamental error promted me to beseech the the saints of this forum to define the term in question. It is my contention that, because this doctrine is one held by Reformed Christians, we are the ones who should be allowed to put forth the definition and that definition alone should be the standard on which the conversation is based. Assuming we all agree, in my next post I will attempt to clarify what atonement means and argue for it's scriptual foundation. In the meantime I earnestly seek your input and guidance. Would'nt it be wonderful if we Christians could actually resolve a breach in our understanding and honor Christ by coming closer together? God Bless you all, John Adams |
||||||
1754 | Is Limited Atonement Bibical? | NT general Archive 1 | John Reformed | 34595 | ||
Dear Tim, God Bless you, I can't tell you how much you've blessed me thru your patient and thoughtful conversation. I was sure that that the problem was one of terms. Can I count you in as a one point calvinist? (ha,ha, just kidding). I must leave for church now. Talk to you later, Bro. John |
||||||
1755 | Is Limited Atonement Bibical? | NT general Archive 1 | John Reformed | 34590 | ||
Dear Tim, If, as Dabney claims and Easton's Bible Dictionary confirms, that atonement is the same word as reconciliation then atonement would necessarily have to be limited. The alternative to Limited Atonement, as set forth, is Universal Atonement! All mankind would be reconciled to God by Christ's death and we know that thats not true. Why anyone should have a problem with this doctrine is beyond me. I really believe people who have a problem with limited atonement just do not understand the meaning of the word. It's either that, or they rather put up a strawman that can easily be knocked down. Of course, I don't place you, Tim, in the latter category. I have been extremely gratified and delighted with our exchanges, but golly gee it seems mighty plain and biblical to me! Looking forward to your reply, Bro. John |
||||||
1756 | Is Limited Atonement Bibical? | NT general Archive 1 | John Reformed | 34586 | ||
Hey Joe, I'm glad to that you chimed in! I'm a newcomer and to tell you the truth I'm a bit anxious just before I hit that send button. Keep your eye on me. I need all the help I can get. Your brother, John |
||||||
1757 | Is Limited Atonement Bibical? | NT general Archive 1 | John Reformed | 34580 | ||
Hi Tim, Did dabney's article at least give you a clearer understanding regarding the reformed definition of Limited Atonement? I know it helped me to understand the difference between atonement (reconciliation) and expiation (sacrifice). The reformed believe that Christ's death was sufficent to provide salvation to all mankind, but actual atonement is limited to those individuals who by faith trust in Christ. I think that you would agree that, only those who believe (those who's sins are atoned for) are reconciled to God. I'm afraid that I am not convinced by your interpretation of John 17:9, that Christ is praying exclusively for His disciples. In vese 2 Jesus says "as you have given Him authority over all flesh, that He shall give eternal life to as many as you have given Him". In verse 20 Jesus says:"I do not pray for these alone but also for those who believe in me through their word". Therefore, given the whole context, Jesus is praying for all who the Father has given Him, believers and disciples alike. I would think that the tough questions for Arminians to answer would be: Why did Jesus exclude the world in His prayer? and, does the possibility exist that, depending on the context, John means different things at different times by the term world? God Bless Tim, Brother John |
||||||
1758 | 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 |
||||||
1759 | 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 |
||||||
1760 | 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. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 ] Next > Last [89] >> |