Limited Atonement and it's faults

[Mark Quayle]

Their condemnation is not for some sins according to the Law of Moses, they are condemned because they do not believe Jesus. You've presented a mixed up account. What the Lord "paid" related to the Law, what those who reject Jesus "pay" is the penalty for rejecting Jesus.

Is this just your position, or the position of the RCC on the matter? When I was a kid I was smart enough to come up with that solution to the discrepancy, but that is all it is —a solution. It is not Scripture, but a human construction.

Where the Bible (John 3:18) says, "whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son", it is given in contrast to those who believe. It is equivalent to saying, "this is how we know who is condemned and who is not.", or, "in contrast to those who believe, these who do not believe are condemned already."

Where does 2 Corinthians 5:10 fit in your eschatology? "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil."

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Where the Bible (John 3:18) says, "whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son", it is given in contrast to those who believe. It is equivalent to saying, "this is how we know who is condemned and who is not.", or, "in contrast to those who believe, these who do not believe are condemned already."

Why does your interpretation eviscerate the passage? It strips away Jesus and substitutes "those who do not believe" leaving only some empty "belief". The scripture is specific, John 3: "17 When God sent his Son into the world, it was not to reject the world, but so that the world might find salvation through him.
18 For the man who believes in him, there is no rejection; the man who does not believe is already rejected; he has not found faith in the name of God’s only-begotten Son.
19 Rejection lies in this, that when the light came into the world men preferred darkness to light; preferred it, because their doings were evil."

PS: Bishop Challoner wrote, "Is not judged. He that believeth, viz. by a faith working through charity, is not judged; that is, is not condemned; but the obstinate unbeliever is judged; that is, condemned already, by retrenching himself from the society of Christ and his Church."

 

[Clare73]

Their condemnation is not for some sins according to the Law of Moses, they are condemned because they do not believe Jesus. You've presented a mixed up account. What the Lord "paid" related to the Law, what those who reject Jesus "pay" is the penalty for rejecting Jesus.

Where in Scripture do we find this distinction in the purpose of the atonement?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Where in Scripture do we find this distinction in the purpose of the atonement?

John 3:18 ff

 

[Mark Quayle]

Why does your interpretation eviscerate the passage? It strips away Jesus and substitutes "those who do not believe" leaving only some empty "belief". The scripture is specific, John 3: "17 When God sent his Son into the world, it was not to reject the world, but so that the world might find salvation through him.

Some empty belief? What are you referring to there? What empty belief?

I'm curious what version you are reading from. You have him intending, (but unable), to save everyone. God saves absolutely everyone he chose (and made) for salvation. The fact the unregenerate reject Christ is indeed condemnation-worthy, but it is not the only condemnation. Their every thought and intent is in opposition to God; they reject him with every deed they do and every beat of their heart. Their sins and sin. They are already condemned because God has imputed Adam's sin to them. Do you think they all get equal punishment in the Lake of Fire?

"16 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. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son."

True that God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world—its residents are already condemned. But whoever believes in him is not condemned.

18 For the man who believes in him, there is no rejection; the man who does not believe is already rejected; he has not found faith in the name of God’s only-begotten Son.
19 Rejection lies in this, that when the light came into the world men preferred darkness to light; preferred it, because their doings were evil."

18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.

PS: Bishop Challoner wrote, "Is not judged. He that believeth, viz. by a faith working through charity, is not judged; that is, is not condemned; but the obstinate unbeliever is judged; that is, condemned already, by retrenching himself from the society of Christ and his Church."

I'm not sure how that makes your point that Christ intended to save them all, but, oh well...

 

[Clare73]

John 3:18 ff

Would you please spell that out for me, the distinction stated there between the law and unbelief in separate forms of payment. . .thanks.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Some empty belief? What are you referring to there? What empty belief?

In your post it's just "belief", rather than belief "in the name of God’s only-begotten Son". You edited Jesus out of the passage. Without Jesus the passage can serve a purpose for which it was not written.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Would you please spell that out for me, the distinction there. . .thanks.

Do you remember the topic and what your previous post contained?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I'm curious what version you are reading from.

Knox Bible

Catholic Bible Online – Douay-Rheims, Latin Vulgate, Knox Bible. Compare translations side-by-side or read the full text with notes.

catholicbible.online

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

You have him intending, (but unable), to save everyone.

It's the scripture that says what it says. It is you who wants it to say something else.

God saves absolutely everyone he chose (and made) for salvation.

And that's the something else you want it to say.

The fact the unregenerate reject Christ is indeed condemnation-worthy, but it is not the only condemnation.

But that is not a fact, the "unregenerate" is everyone, is it not, until they believe. This doctrine that you advocate depends on people never repenting, never changing, and never responding to the gospel because they are enmeshed in an "eternal decree", a decree that leaves all creation static, a completed work of creation which isn't able to change because the whole story is complete. I do not expect you to agree, nor to see that point being made here. It's likely that some protest will be made wherein you'll assert that there's room for repentance in the eternal decree, that it is in fact the decree that makes repentance exist. I'll not try to convince you to change your view. It is not something anyone but you can do. And, I can see, that at the moment you're not ready to consider it.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I'm not sure how that makes your point that Christ intended to save them all, but, oh well...

Apologies for not making the PS more obvious; you had asked if what I'd written was Catholic Church teaching, I gave an example of the teaching of a Catholic Bishop, namely, Bishop Challoner, who wrote,

"Is not judged. He that believeth, viz. by a faith working through charity, is not judged; that is, is not condemned; but the obstinate unbeliever is judged; that is, condemned already, by retrenching himself from the society of Christ and his Church."​

 

[Clare73]

Do you remember the topic and what your previous post contained?

You can link back to all of it, if you don't.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

You can link back to all of it, if you don't.

Isn't it you who asked what this was about?

 

[Clare73]

Isn't it you who asked what this was about?

Link back, and you can clear it all up.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Link back, and you can clear it all up.

Not necessary, I am not the one asking for clarification. Or are you saying that you do not remember the thread's topic, not the previous post that you wrote?

 

[Mark Quayle]

In your post it's just "belief", rather than belief "in the name of God’s only-begotten Son". You edited Jesus out of the passage. Without Jesus the passage can serve a purpose for which it was not written.

You are right. I left it out, in my hurry. What purpose does it serve your thesis, to point out that I left "in the name of God's only-begotten Son" out of my statement? Are you assuming that I didn't want it mentioned? Do it change my point? Your point?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Knox Bible

Catholic Bible Online – Douay-Rheims, Latin Vulgate, Knox Bible. Compare translations side-by-side or read the full text with notes.

catholicbible.online

Ha! That would've been my guess. It's a paraphrase.

 

[Mark Quayle]

It's the scripture that says what it says. It is you who wants it to say something else.

On the contrary, it is you, sir, who mean by the Scripture paraphrase, that God intended to save everyone. I added the fact that he did not save everyone, characterizing it as inability. If God intended to save someone, but did not, he is not God.

But I admit I could be wrong. You might have meant that God had nobody in particular in mind, but depends on chance to bring about salvation to whoever... after all, beggars can't be choosers, right?

And that's the something else you want it to say.

No. I didn't get it from that passage. It is something I get from other passages, and apply here as backup against the notion that God is indeterminate in intention.

But that is not a fact, the "unregenerate" is everyone, is it not, until they believe. This doctrine that you advocate depends on people never repenting, never changing, and never responding to the gospel because they are enmeshed in an "eternal decree", a decree that leaves all creation static, a completed work of creation which isn't able to change because the whole story is complete. I do not expect you to agree, nor to see that point being made here. It's likely that some protest will be made wherein you'll assert that there's room for repentance in the eternal decree, that it is in fact the decree that makes repentance exist. I'll not try to convince you to change your view. It is not something anyone but you can do. And, I can see, that at the moment you're not ready to consider it.

Misrepresentation. "The doctrine advocate [does NOT] depends on people never repenting, never changing, and never responding to the gospel because they are enmeshed in an "eternal decree", a decree that leaves all creation static, a completed work of creation which isn't able to change because the whole story is complete." Now, if you mean to tell me that God's decree DOES change, it's going to be a long argument. The reason they don't "repent... change... respond [positively] to the gospel" is because they are not regenerated, and are unable because they will not repent, change or respond [positively] to the gospel.

Fwiw, my doctrine isn't the only one that is not likely to be repented of anytime soon.

 

[Clare73]

Not necessary, I am not the one asking for clarification. Or are you saying that you do not remember the thread's topic, not the previous post that you wrote?

Dodging?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

It's a paraphrase.

That is incorrect.