Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Are you setting the parameters for God's character, or are you letting Scripture inform you of God's character?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?
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!Are you setting the parameters for God's character, or are you letting Scripture inform you of God's character?
Human experience is not the parameter of God.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.
I'm not sure what you mean. Don't you think you know about God by seeing how He works in your life?Human experience is not the parameter of God.
That is only a part of it.I'm not sure what you mean. Don't you think you know about God by seeing how He works in your life?
I can know about God through Scripture. I can know God through experience.That is only a part of it.
I know of his sovereignty, holiness, justice, magnitude, etc. from 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.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.
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.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.
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.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 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.Yet, that is what @BNR32FAN 's construction logically implies.
No comment on the scriptures I quoted in post 232?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.
So far, I haven't decided which. That too is an option, though.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.
You implied the one death accomplished it all, for all men.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.
Wasn't talking about eternal security, but about his intent being to save everyone.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.
Been there, done that. Doesn't interest me.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
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.Are you setting the parameters for God's character, or are you letting Scripture inform you of God's character?
I never implied that it saved all, I said it was sufficient to save all.You implied the one death accomplished it all, for all men.
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.Wasn't talking about eternal security, but about his intent being to save everyone.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?