Limited Atonement and it's faults

[Clare73]

For me the question of the atonement is the hill to die on. The atonement being universal is so important to me, since it says everything about God's character. But concerning the other theoreticals about the atonement, are not something I would die for.

Are you setting the parameters for God's character, or are you letting Scripture inform you of God's character?

 

[zoidar]

Yet, that is what @BNR32FAN 's construction logically implies.

I'm leaving the response to BNR.

 

[Mark Quayle]

@zoidar said:
For me the question of the atonement is the hill to die on. The atonement being universal is so important to me, since it says everything about God's character. But concerning the other theoreticals about the atonement, are not something I would die for.

Are you setting the parameters for God's character, or are you letting Scripture inform you of God's character?

Exactly right. Is God's love universal in the sense that he loves the Elect? The Bride?

The question gets rather more prickly than that, though. What is it about man being made in the image of God that somehow makes men think God owes them some kind of fondness and respect?

 

[zoidar]

Are you setting the parameters for God's character, or are you letting Scripture inform you of God's character?

Scripture is one way to learn about God's character. We also learn about God through experience, through being in a relationship with Him. If we haven't experienced God it's very hard to understand Scripture, maybe impossible. Both are needed!

But sure if the Scripture stated the atonement being limited I would believe it. But I have found no verse that says that.

 

[Clare73]

Scripture is one way to learn about God's character. We also learn about God through experience, through being in a relationship with Him. If we haven't experienced God it's very hard to understand Scripture, maybe impossible. Both are needed!

But sure if the Scripture stated the atonement being limited I would believe it. But I have found no verse that says that.

Human experience is not the parameter of God.

Man is finite, God is infinite.

Human experience must be understood in the light of Scripture, human experience does not govern the light of Scripture.

 

[zoidar]

Human experience is not the parameter of God.

I'm not sure what you mean. Don't you think you know about God by seeing how He works in your life?

 

[Clare73]

I'm not sure what you mean. Don't you think you know about God by seeing how He works in your life?

That is only a part of it.

I know of his sovereignty, holiness, justice, magnitude, etc. from Scripture.

 

[zoidar]

That is only a part of it.

I know of his sovereignty, holiness, justice, magnitude, etc. from Scripture.

I can know about God through Scripture. I can know God through experience.

 

[zoidar]

Human experience is not the parameter of God.

Man is finite, God is infinite.

Human experience must be understood in the light of Scripture, human experience does not govern the light of Scripture.

I would say it's a yes and no. There is a danger in letting experience govern Scripture. There is also the danger that our life with God becomes so theological that it lacks any real life experience. If you have the gift of healing or prophesying you know these gifts haven't subsided. It might be hard to know this for sure from just reading Scripture. Now this is just an example.

 

[BNR32FAN]

No. It's because you assume first reading is the correct one, since that reading coincides with your narrative. I haven't yet decided which one it is, because there are 3 or 4 different ways to read that, but to say that he intended to save absolutely everyone, is frankly ludicrous.

You said something similar before about how the word “for” can be translated many did ways and I asked how do you interpret it in that particular verse and I don’t recall you replying to that question.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Obviously, one. The one that was necessary. That is not a quantitative death —that much is true. But now your argument invokes quantity to his death. Enough for absolutely everyone. It's a lousy argument. You are sloughing from "wages of sin is death" to "Christ's death paid the wages for everyone".

His death paid the sin of those whom God had chosen and created for that purpose. No others.

My argument does not invoke quantity to His death since my argument is that by His one death He was able to pay for every sin that was ever committed. I fail to see how that implies that Christ would have to endure multiple sacrifices if I’m the one saying that His one sacrifice paid for all sins.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Yet, that is what @BNR32FAN 's construction logically implies.

No that’s not true and you know it. You know full well that I’m opposed to eternal security we’ve had lengthy discussions on that subject several times. So if you know that I am opposed to eternal security then obviously I couldn’t possibly be teaching that God intended to save everyone. God offering salvation to everyone doesn’t imply that He expected everyone to accept it. Now I think you’re focusing too much on being combative and not focusing on being honest about my position.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Obviously, one. The one that was necessary. That is not a quantitative death —that much is true. But now your argument invokes quantity to his death. Enough for absolutely everyone. It's a lousy argument. You are sloughing from "wages of sin is death" to "Christ's death paid the wages for everyone".

His death paid the sin of those whom God had chosen and created for that purpose. No others.

No comment on the scriptures I quoted in post 232?

Limited Atonement and it's faults

I don't know why. I was just trying to figure out @BNR32FAN 's assertion there, and a few logical implications. I would like to see the theological proof, besides a few misused Scripture passages, that show there is a payment for everyone's sin. Is there a way the reasoning circles back around...

www.christianforums.com

 

[Mark Quayle]

You said something similar before about how the word “for” can be translated many did ways and I asked how do you interpret it in that particular verse and I don’t recall you replying to that question.

So far, I haven't decided which. That too is an option, though.

 

[Mark Quayle]

My argument does not invoke quantity to His death since my argument is that by His one death He was able to pay for every sin that was ever committed. I fail to see how that implies that Christ would have to endure multiple sacrifices if I’m the one saying that His one sacrifice paid for all sins.

You implied the one death accomplished it all, for all men.

 

[Mark Quayle]

No that’s not true and you know it. You know full well that I’m opposed to eternal security we’ve had lengthy discussions on that subject several times. So if you know that I am opposed to eternal security then obviously I couldn’t possibly be teaching that God intended to save everyone. God offering salvation to everyone doesn’t imply that He expected everyone to accept it. Now I think you’re focusing too much on being combative and not focusing on being honest about my position.

Wasn't talking about eternal security, but about his intent being to save everyone.

 

[Mark Quayle]

No comment on the scriptures I quoted in post 232?

Limited Atonement and it's faults

I don't know why. I was just trying to figure out @BNR32FAN 's assertion there, and a few logical implications. I would like to see the theological proof, besides a few misused Scripture passages, that show there is a payment for everyone's sin. Is there a way the reasoning circles back around...

www.christianforums.com

Been there, done that. Doesn't interest me.

 

[zoidar]

Are you setting the parameters for God's character, or are you letting Scripture inform you of God's character?

The atonement issue is very emotional to me, my heart wants the sacrifice of Christ to be universal, but that alone wouldn't cut it for me. Though I don't know if I could stay Christian if it turned out the atonement is limited. Because then God would be someone else than I thought He was. You see, it's such an important teaching to me. But me wanting God to be a certain way is not how I know the character of God. When I came to Christ I was so happy that God is good. What if God was evil instead? Knowing God through Christ is very precious to me.

Universal atonement fits both my experience how I came to Christ, and the philosophical aspects. I can't understand how Jesus as a man being sacrificed as a representative of man, can have been sacrificed for anything less than everyone who is a man, which means everyone. It's also the Early Church, where as far as I know there is no hint of the atonement being limited. And lastly, like I said, I don't see any clear cut verse that says the atonement is limited. If it was, I think it would have been clearly stated.

 

[BNR32FAN]

You implied the one death accomplished it all, for all men.

I never implied that it saved all, I said it was sufficient to save all.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Wasn't talking about eternal security, but about his intent being to save everyone.

You also know my position on election being a result of God’s foreknowledge. How can I preach that God intended to save all but wrote the book of life before creation according to His foreknowledge? That doesn’t make sense.