Limited Atonement and it's faults

[Clare73]

Oh come on at least be honest. Where did you get that information from?

How 'bout tea leaves. . .

What source are you using that doesn’t include the words wish and desire in the definition of thelema? All of the concordances and lexicons include wish and desire in the definition of thelema. Thelo and thelema are the same word thelo is the verb form and thelema is the noun form.

Wherein thelo implies volition (will) and purpose, frequently a determination (not just a "desire"), most usually rendered "will."

Just like the words will and desire can both either be used as a verb or a noun. This just shows to what lengths you will go to distort the truth.

Or does it show to what lengths you will go to negate Jn 6:35, Jn 6:37, Jn 6:39?

 

[BNR32FAN]

How 'bout tea leaves. . .

Wherein thelo implies volition (will) and purpose, frequently a determination (not just a "desire"), most usually rendered "will."

Or does it show to what lengths you will go to negate Jn 6:35, Jn 6:37, Jn 6:39?

Oh yes I would go to such lengths as to quote the entire definition of each word.

Thelema
G2307
Noun
1. what one wishes or has determined shall be done
a. of the purpose of God to bless mankind through Christ
b. of what God wishes to be done by us
1. commands, precepts
2. will, choice, inclination, desire, pleasure

Thelo
G2309
Verb
1. to will, have in mind, intend
a. to be resolved or determined, to purpose
b. to desire, to wish
c. to love
1. to like to do a thing, be fond of doing
d. to take delight in, have pleasure

Notice that both have the same definitions and usages. The only difference is one is a noun and the other is a verb.

 

[Clare73]

Oh yes I would go to such lengths as to quote the entire definition of each word.
Thelema
G2307
Noun
1. what one wishes or has determined shall be done
a. of the purpose of God to bless mankind through Christ
b. of what God wishes to be done by us
1. commands, precepts
2. will, choice, inclination, desire, pleasure

Thelo
G2309
Verb
1. to will, have in mind, intend
a. to be resolved or determined, to purpose
b. to desire, to wish
c. to love
1. to like to do a thing, be fond of doing
d. to take delight in, have pleasure

Notice that both have the same definitions and usages. The only difference is one is a noun and the other is a verb.

And so your use of the verb (thelo) for the noun "will" (thelema) in Jn 6:39 is a misinterpretation.

 

[BNR32FAN]

And so your use of the verb (thelo) for the noun "will" (thelema) in Jn 6:39 is a misinterpretation.

It’s the same root word with the same meaning just like we use the words will and desire in the English language can be used as either a noun or a verb. It doesn’t change the definition. In any case it doesn’t matter because the definition of Thelema is right there in front of you. Do you see the word wish or desire in the definition of Thelema?

 

[Clare73]

It’s the same root word with the same meaning just like we use the words will and desire in the English language can be used as either a noun or a verb. It doesn’t change the definition. In any case it doesn’t matter because the definition of Thelema is right there in front of you. Do you see the word wish or desire in the definition of Thelema?

Yes. . .that's not the point. . .either way does not alter the meaning of Jn 6:35, Jn 6:37. . .I don't do weeds.

 

[Mark Quayle]

How so? In your theology everyone doesn’t have a chance for salvation.

You said, "This doesn’t negate that the offer can be extended even tho He knew they wouldn’t accept it. By doing this He will be justified in saying to the condemned that they had every opportunity to be saved just like everyone else." I say that in a sense the offer is there in the Gospel preached and even in the witness of nature, and other sure indications of the existence of God. They are thus "offered salvation", but he KNOWS they won't accept it, just as it says of them in Romans 8, that they are unable to submit to God's law, and are unable to please him.

You say, here, "In your theology everyone doesn’t have a chance for salvation." You're right about that. Salvation has nothing to do with chance. But what you mean is that in my theology the "offer" is void. No, it isn't. —As I have pointed out before, many times, if any would accept the offer, they would be of the Elect, but they will not, unless God regenerates them, as he does sooner or later to all the Elect.

I never said that. I never said anything about God being responsible for their sin. I said that in your theology God is responsible for their inability to repent and believe. That is what you preach isn’t it? That no one can repent and believe unless The Father has enabled them?

Their sin is their own. Their enmity with God is ordained, and caused, but it is their will that is at enmity with God, until God regenerates them. So the term 'responsible' is used loosely by you to blame God, and by me, to credit God.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Again I never said anything about God being responsible for sin. In all my posts about sin it has always been man’s own fault that he sinned. But sin is not the determining factor for salvation, repentance is. Everyone has sinned but people are condemned because they didn’t repent and believe. In your theology are the condemned even capable of repentance?

You have said that in Calvinist theology, God is responsible for sin. You just said, in post 320, "I never said anything about God being responsible for their sin. I said that in your theology God is responsible for their inability to repent and believe. That is what you preach isn’t it? That no one can repent and believe unless The Father has enabled them?" Is it not their will to sin, that is why they are unable to repent and believe? So you have said that God is responsible for their sin. Notice I did not say, "You have said, 'God is responsible for their sin.'" But I wouldn't be surprised to find that you have said it.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

It seems to me that if God sent his son to save the world rather than to condemn it, then we can take that as a reliable statement of God's intent.
John 12:

46 I have come into the world as a light, so that all those who believe in me may continue no longer in darkness.​

47 If a man hears my words, and does not keep true to them, I do not pass sentence on him; I have come to save the world, not to pass sentence on the world.​

 

[Clare73]

It seems to me that if God sent his son to save the world rather than to condemn it, then we can take that as a reliable statement of God's intent.
John 12:

46 I have come into the world as a light, so that all those who believe in me may continue no longer in darkness.​

47 If a man hears my words, and does not keep true to them, I do not pass sentence on him; I have come to save the world, not to pass sentence on the world.​

That was his intent at his first coming--to save
His intent at his second coming is to judge/condemn the world.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

That was his intent at his first coming--to save
His intent at his second coming is to judge/condemn the world.

Isn't his second coming quite distinct from his first? Why did you bring it up? What has it to do with limited atonement and its faults?

 

[BNR32FAN]

You said, "This doesn’t negate that the offer can be extended even tho He knew they wouldn’t accept it. By doing this He will be justified in saying to the condemned that they had every opportunity to be saved just like everyone else." I say that in a sense the offer is there in the Gospel preached and even in the witness of nature, and other sure indications of the existence of God. They are thus "offered salvation", but he KNOWS they won't accept it, just as it says of them in Romans 8, that they are unable to submit to God's law, and are unable to please him.

You say, here, "In your theology everyone doesn’t have a chance for salvation." You're right about that. Salvation has nothing to do with chance. But what you mean is that in my theology the "offer" is void. No, it isn't. —As I have pointed out before, many times, if any would accept the offer, they would be of the Elect, but they will not, unless God regenerates them, as he does sooner or later to all the Elect.

Their sin is their own. Their enmity with God is ordained, and caused, but it is their will that is at enmity with God, until God regenerates them. So the term 'responsible' is used loosely by you to blame God, and by me, to credit God.

Ok but you are still saying that they are unable to repent right? Without God granting them regeneration they cannot repent, correct?

 

[BNR32FAN]

You have said that in Calvinist theology, God is responsible for sin. You just said, in post 320, "I never said anything about God being responsible for their sin. I said that in your theology God is responsible for their inability to repent and believe. That is what you preach isn’t it? That no one can repent and believe unless The Father has enabled them?" Is it not their will to sin, that is why they are unable to repent and believe? So you have said that God is responsible for their sin. Notice I did not say, "You have said, 'God is responsible for their sin.'" But I wouldn't be surprised to find that you have said it.

Ok I see your point in that spect yes I can see how that would imply that God is causing them to sin. What I was referring to is the typical God controls everything and everyone argument so that makes Him responsible for their sin. I thought that was what you were referring to. But in the aspect of repentance you have said that they are incapable of repenting.

Just as obedience is available to all. But they can not, because they WILL not to. Always. It is who they are. And so were we all, but for the Irresistible Grace of God. Regeneration by the gift of the Spirit of God. My will has been changed.

You even said it again in your reference to Romans 8.

They are thus "offered salvation", but he KNOWS they won't accept it, just as it says of them in Romans 8, that they are unable to submit to God's law, and are unable to please him.

All I’m doing is quoting you, you are the one saying that they are incapable of repentance not me.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I don't do weeds

What does this mean?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Ok but you are still saying that they are unable to repent right? Without God granting them regeneration they cannot repent, correct?

Without God regenerating them. Why do you say "granting them regeneration"? What does that even mean —that God has set up a principle for them to accept? Regeneration is accomplished by God alone, without regard to the decision or will of the Elect.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Ok I see your point in that spect yes I can see how that would imply that God is causing them to sin. What I was referring to is the typical God controls everything and everyone argument so that makes Him responsible for their sin. I thought that was what you were referring to. But in the aspect of repentance you have said that they are incapable of repenting.

Does God controlling everything and everyone mean that he is at fault for their sin? Of course not!

You even said it again in your reference to Romans 8.

Said WHAT again? I don't know what you are referring to.

All I’m doing is quoting you, you are the one saying that they are incapable of repentance not me.

Whatever. I'm not following your argument.

 

[Clare73]

Isn't his second coming quite distinct from his first? Why did you bring it up? What has it to do with limited atonement and its faults?

Why should I not bring it up? You introduced Christ's intention. . .I gave the whole picture, not just part, of his intention regarding the world, which includes judging/condemning it.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Does God controlling everything and everyone mean that he is at fault for their sin? Of course not!


Said WHAT again? I don't know what you are referring to.


Whatever. I'm not following your argument.

My argument is that you claim that I’m the one implying that God causes people to sin when I’m only quoting what you’ve said. You said that if people don’t repent that is a sin but I’m quoting you saying that they can’t repent, that they are unable to repent. So if I’m quoting you saying that they are unable to repent and you say that their failure to repent is a sin then how am I the one saying that God is responsible for their sin? You’re saying that yourself, I’m just quoting what you said.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Without God regenerating them. Why do you say "granting them regeneration"? What does that even mean —that God has set up a principle for them to accept? Regeneration is accomplished by God alone, without regard to the decision or will of the Elect.

It means He has granted them the ability to repent. That should be obvious.

 

[Clare73]

Ok but you are still saying that they are unable to repent right? Without God granting them regeneration they cannot repent, correct?

"Granting them regeneration" is a misnomer.

Neither natural birth nor spiritual rebirth are "granted."
You can't grant anything to one who does not exist prior to conception (natural) nor
prior to quickening (zoogoneo) by the Holy Spirit (spiritual).

Nor is delivery at birth a matter of "granting," for it is the result of an act with which the new-born (both naturally and spiritually) had absolutely nothing to do in any way whatsoever.

It is: "Without regeneration they cannot repent."
Or: "They cannot repent if they are not regenerated."

 

[zoidar]

We have Jesus story how God can forgive a dept and then reinstate it. Is that a double payment? This is one aspect of the atonement.

“For this reason the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his slaves. When he had begun to settle them, one who owed him ten thousand talents was brought to him. But since he did not have the means to repay, his lord commanded him to be sold, along with his wife and children and all that he had, and repayment to be made. So the slave fell to the ground and prostrated himself before him, saying, ‘Have patience with me and I will repay you everything.’ And the lord of that slave felt compassion and released him and forgave him the debt. But that slave went out and found one of his fellow slaves who owed him a hundred denarii; and he seized him and began to choke him, saying, ‘Pay back what you owe.’ So his fellow slave fell to the ground and began to plead with him, saying, ‘Have patience with me and I will repay you.’ But he was unwilling and went and threw him in prison until he should pay back what was owed. So when his fellow slaves saw what had happened, they were deeply grieved and came and reported to their lord all that had happened. Then summoning him, his lord said to him, ‘You wicked slave, I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave, in the same way that I had mercy on you?’ And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him. My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart.”
— Matthew 18:23-35