Limited Atonement and it's faults

[Xeno.of.athens]

It doesn't. What has that to do with what we are talking about?

That is a good point with this one amendment; we were not talking about it. The conversation was with another person.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I took a shower just this morning!

Lovely.

 

[zoidar]

Ok

I say what I did as a concession to the use many people make of certain verses. If they want to say that God made people able to choose to accept or reject him apart from his work in their heart, since he died "for" them all, I've argued the "for" till I'm blue in the face. So I try to demonstrate a way even their arrangement still doesn't mean he paid for the sins of absolutely everyone. So: In a sense, yes, the atonement is made 'for' everyone; they do, after all, choose to reject it...

Even if Jesus died for everyone, it doesn't have to mean we can choose him by free will. Regeneration of the heart may still have to come first, even I personally believe in regeneration after repentance.

I know John Piper says that Jesus died for everyone but in different ways, in a salvific way for the elect and a none salvific way for others. I don't understand in what way it could be said Jesus died for the reprobate. I mean, in what way was atonement made for them? Maybe you can help me understand that.

 

[BNR32FAN]

So?. . .how many times must the word of God state it before it is true?

The word trinity exists in no verse in the NT.

Atonement is not reconciliation, it is propitiation, expiation, satisfaction. . .the result of which satisfaction is reconciliation.

If you are thinking atonement is at-one-ment with God, that is pure fancy.

The corresponding NT word for "atonement" in Lev 16 and 17 (Heb: kaphar) is Gr: hilasterion (Ro 3:25, Heb 9:5) and Gr: hilasmos (1 Jn 2:2, 1 Jn 4:10), the "mercy-seat" covering the Ark of the Covenant .

Atonement is propitiation: the means, in and through the Person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ in his death on the cross by the shedding of his blood in his vicarious sacrifice for sin, by which God can show mercy to sinners.

Atonement is not propitiation because not everyone receives atonement. Everyone has received propitiation. Atonement is reconciliation, everyone has not been reconciled to God.

 

[BNR32FAN]

He didn't. The Scriptures do not say that he did.

He is the propitiation for our sin and not only for our’s but the whole the whole world. The scriptures do in fact say that He did.

 

[BNR32FAN]

How do you understand propitiation?

Propitiation is the payment of our debt that was due as a result of our sin.

 

[Mark Quayle]

He is the propitiation for our sin and not only for our’s but the whole the whole world. The scriptures do in fact say that He did.

No. The question was, "Why did he cook eggs for the whole family?" But, he did not cook eggs for the whole family.

You do not (nor do I) think in Kione Greek. The word "for", even in English, carries a lot of different uses, and certainly the Greek prepositions translated "for" in English, all carry many uses.

So, the use here is easily, and using our analogy, "He cooked the eggs: If anyone is to have cooked eggs for breakfast, that's how they were cooked." HE is the propitiation. There is no necessary use to show that all people's sins have been forgiven them, nor that there will be double payment of the sin debt, nor even that Christ suffered poetically.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You flatter me to suggest that I am the translator who produced the text quoted in my posts. It is, of course, not mine. It is the work of Ronald Knox.

You used them. "Your"

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

You used them. "Your"

That, sir, is a misuse of the possessive.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Even if Jesus died for everyone, it doesn't have to mean we can choose him by free will. Regeneration of the heart may still have to come first, even I personally believe in regeneration after repentance.

I know John Piper says that Jesus died for everyone but in different ways, in a salvific way for the elect and a none salvific way for others. I don't understand in what way it could be said Jesus died for the reprobate. I mean, in what way was atonement made for them? Maybe you can help me understand that.

John Piper has his own POV. I don't pretend to hold to the words he uses, nor, necessarily, to agree with what he means, (nor, always, to understand him, haha!).

"Dying FOR the reprobate" can mean several things, but I don't say that atonement was made for them, but for the one way —the same way as atonement was made in the Old Testament for those who ended up condemned anyway. I don't think their sins were actually forgiven them, by the sacrificial system, but they went through the motions.

This may be a reasonably good place to mention something I want to know more about. Rather obviously, not all sin is forgiven the reprobate, if any (I say, none—but that's beside the point). But there is something to the universal fact of Christ restoring the creation to God. I, of course, disagree completely with universalism, but there is something to the death of death, in what Christ accomplished, that I don't think is totally outside the scope of temporal human understanding. Might be fun to start a thread on the question, but I'm afraid of having to deal with all the universalist's use of the matter.

 

[Clare73]

You flatter me to suggest that I am the translator who produced the text quoted in my posts. It is, of course, not mine. It is the work of Ronald Knox.

Surely you don't think I hold you responsible for the Greek text.

I point out the discrepancies in the text to explain what may account for any differences from my "commentary" in your understanding of Ro 3:25-26.

 

[Mark Quayle]

That, sir, is a misuse of the possessive.

It is common terminology. Let's say you agree with one of Aquinas' Five Ways, and use it to argue a point. I might well call it "your" argument, even though it was only your use of Aquinas' argument.

 

[Clare73]

Atonement is not propitiation because not everyone receives atonement. Everyone has received propitiation. Atonement is reconciliation, everyone has not been reconciled to God.

Agreed. . .not everyone receives atonement, which absence thereof has nothing to do with the meaning of the Greek words, hilasterion, hilasmos (cover).
No one has "received" propitiation (hilaskomai), it is God who receives propitiation, is propitiated.

 

[Clare73]

John Piper has his own POV. I don't pretend to hold to the words he uses, nor, necessarily, to agree with what he means, (nor, always, to understand him, haha!).
"Dying FOR the reprobate" can mean several things, but I don't say that atonement was made for them, but for the one way —the same way as atonement was made in the Old Testament for those who ended up condemned anyway. I don't think their sins were actually forgiven them, by the sacrificial system, but they went through the motions.
This may be a reasonably good place to mention something I want to know more about. Rather obviously, not all sin is forgiven the reprobate, if any (I say, none—but that's beside the point).

But there is something to the universal fact of Christ restoring the creation to God. I, of course, disagree completely with universalism, but there is something to the death of death, in what Christ accomplished, that I don't think is totally outside the scope of temporal human understanding. Might be fun to start a thread on the question, but I'm afraid of having to deal with all the universalist's use of the matter.

Would it have to do with everything aging and dying now, "suffering" diseases, etc.?
Sorta' leaves plain minerals out of the equation. . .

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Surely you don't think I hold you responsible for the Greek text.

I am sure that the English of my post is utterly incapable of the interpretation that you've included above.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

It is common terminology. Let's say you agree with one of Aquinas' Five Ways, and use it to argue a point. I might well call it "your" argument, even though it was only your use of Aquinas' argument.

If I quote the KJV it does not follow that the KJV is "my translation" or "my bible".

 

[BNR32FAN]

No. The question was, "Why did he cook eggs for the whole family?" But, he did not cook eggs for the whole family.

You do not (nor do I) think in Kione Greek. The word "for", even in English, carries a lot of different uses, and certainly the Greek prepositions translated "for" in English, all carry many uses.

So, the use here is easily, and using our analogy, "He cooked the eggs: If anyone is to have cooked eggs for breakfast, that's how they were cooked." HE is the propitiation. There is no necessary use to show that all people's sins have been forgiven them, nor that there will be double payment of the sin debt, nor even that Christ suffered poetically.

I never implied that everyone’s sins have been forgiven, they have simply been paid for. Let’s say that a neighbor comes to your house and smashes your car windshield with a crowbar, then his father says he’ll pay for the damage. The debt has been paid but the person who did the damage has never made amends or even apologized for it. There’s no reason to forgive the guy who smashed the window because he hasn’t done anything to right what he did nor has he even shown any remorse for doing it. In this case even tho the debt was paid the one who committing the crime is undeserving of forgiveness because he hasn’t apologized for what he did or even acknowledge that what he did was wrong.

So what definition of the word “for” do you think is being used here?

And I’ve never implied that a second payment for sin is required.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Why all this egg talk? It isn't clarifying the meaning of any verses.

How about you explain your understanding of these words, "Because Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God"

 

[Cassian]

John Piper has his own POV. I don't pretend to hold to the words he uses, nor, necessarily, to agree with what he means, (nor, always, to understand him, haha!).

"Dying FOR the reprobate" can mean several things, but I don't say that atonement was made for them, but for the one way —the same way as atonement was made in the Old Testament for those who ended up condemned anyway. I don't think their sins were actually forgiven them, by the sacrificial system, but they went through the motions.

My take on what the discussion seems to be about is not really the atonement that Christ did but more about atonement of man which I don't understand how one can get this from scripture. It also has all the undertones of the satisfaction theory of atonement.
First. Christ did not forgive any sins on the Cross.
Christ performed two things by His death and resurrection. He overcame death and performed a sacrifice for sin. That comprises the atonement of Christ. He defeated the two powers of Satan , death and sin, as well as Satan himself. Heb 2:14-15 which also addresses His Incarnation. He is the Savior of the world - I John 4:14.
This atonement was to God. It was not to man. Col 1:16-20 He was reconciling the world to God, all things. II Cor 5:18-19 makes the very same statement. Then we have texts that refer to one aspect of His Atonement. Like Heb 2:9, He tasted death for all men. And I John 2:2 he propitiated (cover) all sin. That is why Christ's atonement was universal.
Therefore His death/esurrection provided for an eternal existence and the forgiveness of sin.

This may be a reasonably good place to mention something I want to know more about. Rather obviously, not all sin is forgiven the reprobate, if any (I say, none—but that's beside the point). But there is something to the universal fact of Christ restoring the creation to God. I, of course, disagree completely with universalism, but there is something to the death of death, in what Christ accomplished, that I don't think is totally outside the scope of temporal human understanding. Might be fun to start a thread on the question, but I'm afraid of having to deal with all the universalist's use of the matter.

Here you alude to the aspect of Christ overcoming death. That He reconciled, redeemed recapitulated the world. There are many texts that address this. This is the primary work of the atonement. Without overcoming death, forgiveness of sins means nothing. This is referenced in I Cor 15:12-22. Vs 16-19 particularlly and the summary of overcoming death and given life is summed in vs 20-22 as well as Rom 5:18.
Your fear of Universalism may be based on misunderstanding from what I understand of Universalism. They do not believe all men are "saved in this life. Many will go to hell. However, they believe hell is a temporary, correctional time and eventually all men will be saved. which is not scrriptural either.

 

[Clare73]

I am sure that the English of my post is utterly incapable of the interpretation that you've included above.

And the same is true regarding the translation of the Greek texts provided there.