Limited Atonement and it's faults

[Xeno.of.athens]

On the contrary, it is you, sir, who mean by the Scripture paraphrase

Your post is based on a false premise and so will end in false allegations and false conclusions.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Dodging?

I cannot be held responsible for your inferences, nor for the evident lack of awareness of the thread's topic, nor for the failure to recall what was in your own posts.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

if you mean to tell me that God's decree DOES change, it's going to be a long argument

I mean to tell you no such thing; but I do mean to tell you that you do not know the contents of any Eternal Decree from God.

 

[Mark Quayle]

That is incorrect.

Look up the interlinear, with the Greek. Your version is a paraphrase. It is an interpretation —not just a translation.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I mean to tell you no such thing; but I do mean to tell you that you do not know the contents of any Eternal Decree from God.

We both know some things of God's decree. We know, for example, that the redeemed are the Body of Christ. It is what it is, because God said so.

 

[Mark Quayle]

@Clare73 said:
Dodging?

I cannot be held responsible for your inferences, nor for the evident lack of awareness of the thread's topic, nor for the failure to recall what was in your own posts.

Maybe I can help; though it seems to me neither of you really care to go there, but each wants the other to be the first one bailing out, I am having too much fun watching this to let it end so soon! Clare has made her point (which I will quote and translate —er, paraphrase— forthwith), but Xeno doesn't want to acknowledge it.

So, pretending to moderate your debate —taking the dog by the ears:

(Mark Quayle had said:
"On the contrary. If he PAID it, and they end up PAYING it regardless of his payment, he paid in vain. You limit the efficacy of his payment.")

Xeno.of.athens said:
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.

Clare73 said:
Where in Scripture do we find this distinction in the purpose of the atonement? (Editor's paraphrase: Scripture does not, without contradicting itself, make this distinction.)

Xeno.of.athens said:
John 3:18 ff

Clare73 said:
Would you please spell that out for me, the distinction there. . .thanks.

And thus, the dodging begins....

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Look up the interlinear, with the Greek. Your version is a paraphrase. It is an interpretation —not just a translation.

That is incorrect; it is in fact a translation from the Latin, as the web site explains.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

We both know some things of God's decree. We know, for example, that the redeemed are the Body of Christ. It is what it is, because God said so.

Calvinism flatters human vanity by claiming to understand things that in fact are not understood. There's a filter of sorts that is applied in the theology your posts present. But I do not expect you to see it, nor do I expect that you would reject it even if you did see it clearly.

 

[Clare73]

That is incorrect; it is in fact a translation from the Latin, as the web site explains.

Then it is the Latin that has altered the Greek, the language of the text.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Clare73 said:
Would you please spell that out for me, the distinction there. . .thanks.

If this is a "point" I wonder why it is asked as a question "would you please", unless it is not a genuine question but instead a little bit of drama of the same sort as "Pray tell, what exactly do you assert the passage has to say on this matter?" and that would indeed be an uncharitable interpretation to apply to @Clare73 's remark. But since your post suggests that something of that sort is the "point" the answer is included in your post; specifically,

"Xeno.of.athens said:​

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."​

The answer to @Clare73 is this passage John 3:16-21

16 God so loved the world, that he gave up his only-begotten Son, so that those who believe in him may not perish, but have eternal life.​

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.​

20 Anyone who acts shamefully hates the light, will not come into the light, for fear that his doings will be found out.​

21 Whereas the man whose life is true comes to the light, so that his deeds may be seen for what they are, deeds done in God.✻​

Which says that Jesus didn't become incarnate to judge people by the standards of Moses' law, he came to help them find salvation by means of believing in Jesus as God's only-begotten Son. And he also teaches that condemnation comes from rejecting Jesus (and the light which he is in this world) because those who reject Jesus do so because they act shamefully and hide from the light so that their deeds can remain hidden - but of course, with God the darkness is as bright as the day and nothing is hidden from him so their deeds are exposed and their unbelief leaves them condemned because they they reject the only-begotten Son of God.

Yet, you said you thought something like this in your youth, when you (so you said, held to childish notions) and now in hindsight you see the childishness of reading the passage thus. Okay, I am content that you think that way, and that you think @Clare73 made a point. But I extended charity to the post and what it asked, so reminded @Clare73 of the thread's topic, and her recent posts because they included the answer to the question if it were just a question rather than what you appear to think it was.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Then it is the Latin that has altered the Greek, the language of the text.

Spoken like one who has insufficient knowledge of textual criticism and thus devalues the "western text" which is Latin and is in fact a significant "witness" to the earliest Greek of the New Testament.

In textual criticism of the New Testament, the Western text-type is one of the main text types. It is the predominant form of the New Testament text witnessed in the Old Latin and Syriac Peshitta translations from the Greek, and also in quotations from certain 2nd and 3rd-century Christian writers, including Cyprian, Tertullian and Irenaeus. The Western text had many characteristic features, which appeared in text of the Gospels, Book of Acts, and in Pauline epistles. The Catholic epistles and the Book of Revelation probably did not have a Western form of text. It was named "Western" by Semmler (1725–1791), having originated in early centers of Christianity in the Western Roman Empire.​

 

[Clare73]

If this is a "point" I wonder why it is asked as a question "would you please", unless it is not a genuine question but instead a little bit of drama of the same sort as "Pray tell, what exactly do you assert the passage has to say on this matter?" and that would indeed be an uncharitable interpretation to apply to @Clare73 's remark. But since your post suggests that something of that sort is the "point" the answer is included in your post; specifically,

"Xeno.of.athens said:​

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."​

The answer to @Clare73 is this passage John 3:16-21

16 God so loved the world, that he gave up his only-begotten Son, so that those who believe in him may not perish, but have eternal life.​

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.​

20 Anyone who acts shamefully hates the light, will not come into the light, for fear that his doings will be found out.​

21 Whereas the man whose life is true comes to the light, so that his deeds may be seen for what they are, deeds done in God.✻​

Which says that Jesus didn't become incarnate to judge people by the standards of Moses' law, he came to help them find salvation by means of believing in Jesus as God's only-begotten Son.
And he also teaches that condemnation comes from rejecting Jesus (and the light which he is in this world) because those who reject Jesus do so because they act shamefully and hide from the light so that their deeds can remain hidden - but of course, with God the darkness is as bright as the day and nothing is hidden from him so their deeds are exposed and their unbelief leaves them condemned because they they reject the only-begotten Son of God.

Yet, you said you thought something like this in your youth, when you (so you said, held to childish notions) and now in hindsight you see the childishness of reading the passage thus. Okay, I am content that you think that way, and that you think @Clare73 made a point. But I extended charity to the post and what it asked, so reminded @Clare73 of the thread's topic, and her recent posts because they included the answer to the question if it were just a question rather than what you appear to think it was.

Now I see what you mean. . .thanks.

Because Jesus emphasized that he came not to judge the world, but to save the world,
you think he is making a distinction between judging the world by the law and judging the world by faith.

However, that is not what he is saying.
He is distinguishing not between faith and law, rather he is distinguishing between
his first coming, which is to save the world, and
his second coming which is to judge the world.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Because Jesus emphasized that he came not to judge the world, but to save the world,
you think he is making a distinction between salvation by faith and salvation by the law, between judgment based on faith and judgment based on law.

However, that is not what he is saying.
He is distinguishing not between faith and law, but between
his first coming, which is to save the world, and
his second coming which is to judge the world.

That is incorrect. Take some time to review what I wrote again. It does not say what you have said and it does not imply it, but you have inferred it on your own without anything from me to indicate it.

 

[Clare73]

That is incorrect. Take some time to review what I wrote again. It does not say what you have said and it does not imply it, but you have inferred it on your own without anything from me to indicate it.

That is what I understand from what I quoted from you (in blue) in post #52 to mean.

Please explain how it differs from what I understand it to mean.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

That is what I understand from what I quoted from you (in blue) in post #52 to mean.

Please explain how it differs from what I understand it to mean.

Okay, I shall take your request at face value. I am glad that your previous question was genuine, or at least it seems so.

The quote you used is this

Which says that Jesus didn't become incarnate to judge people by the standards of Moses' law, he came to help them find salvation by means of believing in Jesus as God's only-begotten Son.​

And he also teaches that condemnation comes from rejecting Jesus (and the light which he is in this world) because those who reject Jesus do so because they act shamefully and hide from the light so that their deeds can remain hidden - but of course, with God the darkness is as bright as the day and nothing is hidden from him so their deeds are exposed and their unbelief leaves them condemned because they they reject the only-begotten Son of God.​

What that means is this:

1. Jesus came to end the old covenant's dromion over Israel (Galatians 3).
2. In ending it he set the law in its proper context, as a means of condemning people and not of saving them (Romans 7; Hebrews 7).
3. The Law never was able to save anyone, it lacked the power, but it did teach what sin was and it also taught by means of bitter experience that none can fulfil the law except God in Christ alone (Hebrews 7; Romans 7).

All of these points are explicitly taught in the gospels and saint Paul's letters. I am confident that you know the passages so I am not including them.
Furthermore:

1. Jesus came to be the light of the world (John 8:12).
2. His light shines upon all human beings (John 1:4-5).
3. His light reveals what people do, it shines a light on their deeds (John 3:19).
4. And their deeds make them ashamed, but rather than repent some choose to turn away from the light and thus to reject Jesus who is the light (John 3:20).
5. But Jesus came to enable human being to be saved and to find salvation by coming to the light so that their deeds may be seen to be good. Their good deeds are chiefly those that flow from their faith in Jesus Christ. And they are saved because they believed in Jesus Christ as God's only-begotten Son (John 3:21).

I hope that helps you to understand what I wrote. I hope it clarifies what I had to say about John 3:16-21.

 

[Clare73]

Okay, I shall take your request at face value. I am glad that your previous question was genuine, or at least it seems so.

I respect you too much to play games with you. . .not to mention, those kind of games are not my "thing."

The quote you used is this

Which says that Jesus didn't become incarnate to judge people by the standards of Moses' law, he came to help them find salvation by means of believing in Jesus as God's only-begotten Son.​

And he also teaches that condemnation comes from rejecting Jesus (and the light which he is in this world) because those who reject Jesus do so because they act shamefully and hide from the light so that their deeds can remain hidden - but of course, with God the darkness is as bright as the day and nothing is hidden from him so their deeds are exposed and their unbelief leaves them condemned because they they reject the only-begotten Son of God.​

What that means is this:

1. Jesus came to end the old covenant's dromion over Israel (Galatians 3).
2. In ending it he set the law in its proper context, as a means of condemning people and not of saving them (Romans 7; Hebrews 7).
3. The Law never was able to save anyone, it lacked the power, but it did teach what sin was and it also taught by means of bitter experience that none can fulfil the law except God in Christ alone (Hebrews 7; Romans 7).

Or does it mean this:

1. Jesus came to die, to give his life as ransom (Mt 20:28) for the sins of many.
2. Jesus said nothing about ending the law, only about fulfilling the law (Mt 5:17).
It is the apostle who teaches us that the Old (Mosaic) Covenant (Heb 8:13) and Levitical laws are ended (Eph 2:15).
3. The law was not given to save anyone, for righteousness had always been by faith (Gal 3:11) since Abraham (Ge 15:6, Ro 4:3).
That was a Jewish misunderstanding, for the law had always been given only to reveal sin (Ro 3:20).

All of these points are explicitly taught in the gospels and saint Paul's letters. I am confident that you know the passages so I am not including them.
Furthermore:

1. Jesus came to be the light of the world (John 8:12).
2. His light shines upon all human beings (John 1:4-5).
3. His light reveals what people do, it shines a light on their deeds (John 3:19).
4. And their deeds make them ashamed, but rather than repent some choose to turn away from the light and thus to reject Jesus who is the light (John 3:20).
5. But Jesus came to enable human being to be saved and to find salvation by coming to the light so that their deeds may be seen to be good. Their good deeds are chiefly those that flow from their faith in Jesus Christ. And they are saved because they believed in Jesus Christ as God's only-begotten Son (John 3:21).

I hope that helps you to understand what I wrote. I hope it clarifies what I had to say about John 3:16-21.

Thanks.

Yes, I understand what you wrote, and responded thereto.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Or does it mean this:

1. Jesus came to die, to give his life as ransom (Mt 20:28) for the sins of many.
2. Jesus said nothing about ending the law, only about fulfilling the law (Mt 5:17).
It is the apostle who teaches us that the Old (Mosaic) Covenant (Heb 8:13) and Levitical laws are ended (Eph 2:15).
3. The law was not given to save anyone, for righteousness had always been by faith (Gal 3:11) since Abraham (Ge 15:6, Ro 4:3).
That was a Jewish misunderstanding, for the law had always been given only to reveal sin (Ro 3:20).

Well,
#1 is not implied by John 3:16-21,
#2 But Hebrews 7 and Romans 7 do speak of the Law's termination, and especially Galatians 3. And it is implied by John 3:16-21.
#3 is what I said anyway, the law cannot save any, but Jesus can. And Jesus was always the one who saves while the Law never saved any person.

 

[Clare73]

Well,
#1 is not implied by John 3:16-21,

You do not see Jesus' atoning death implied in:
he gave his one and only Son (Jn 3:16) and
God sent the Son into the world to save the world through him (Jn 3:17)?

#2 But Hebrews 7 and Romans 7 do speak of the Law's termination, and especially Galatians 3. And it is implied by John 3:16-21.

But was it not the OT law of God to obey the one whom he sent (Dt 18:17-19, see Jn 1:45, Jn 6:14, Mt 11:2-3, Mt 21:11)?
Where does Jesus imply the Law's termination, in light of Mt 5:17?

#3 is what I said anyway, the law cannot save any, but Jesus can. And Jesus was always the one who saves while the Law never saved any person.

What saved them in the OT?

They were saved by faith in the Promise (Ge 15:5, seed, Jesus Christ, Gal 3:16).

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

You do not see Jesus' atoning death implied in:
he gave his one and only Son (Jn 3:16) and
God sent the Son into the world to save the world through him (Jn 3:17)?

But was it not the OT law of God to obey the one whom he sent (Dt 18:17-19, see Jn 1:45, Jn 6:14, Mt 11:2-3, Mt 21:11)?
Where does Jesus imply the Law's termination, in light of Mt 5:17?

What saved them in the OT?

They were saved by faith in the Promise (Ge 15:5, seed, Jesus Christ, Gal 3:16).

I am confident that you have heard of both-and as a conjunction. Thus Jesus both "gave his life a ransom for many" and "came to save people through faith in his name"; similarly Jesus both "came to establish the Law" and "came to set people free from the Law ". As saint Paul wrote "he has made us suitable ministers of the New Testament, not in the letter, but in the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." I need not labour the point, because it must be obvious to all that more than one statement that is true can be made about the work of our Lord, Jesus Christ.

You asked "what saved them in the OT" the answer is Jesus did; it was always Jesus who saved, always "who saves" rather than "what saves".

And, to make matters clear, faith does not save, Jesus does. And he saves by means of faith in himself. That is what John 3:16-21 teaches, so does Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul in his letters. Jesus is Saviour, not the Law, not Faith, nor Knowledge, Wisdom, Experience, Gifts, Ceremonies, Baptism, or anything else. Salvation is always and only by Jesus and through the means he stipulates. Jesus saves, he uses means such as faith to accomplish it.

 

[Clare73]

I am confident that you have heard of both-and as a conjunction. Thus Jesus both "gave his life a ransom for many" and "came to save people through faith in his name"; similarly Jesus both "came to establish the Law" and "came to set people free from the Law ". As saint Paul wrote "he has made us suitable ministers of the New Testament, not in the letter, but in the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." I need not labour the point, because it must be obvious to all that more than one statement that is true can be made about the work of our Lord, Jesus Christ.

You asked "what saved them in the OT" the answer is Jesus did; it was always Jesus who saved, always "who saves" rather than "what saves".
And, to make matters clear, faith does not save, Jesus does.

We are saved from the wrath of God (Ro 5:9), because of forgiveness of sin and imputation of righteousness (Ro 4:1-11) by grace through faith (Eph 2:8-9; Ro 1:17, 3:22, 4:5, 13, 9:30-32, 10:6; Gal 2:16, Php 3:9, Heb 11:7).

What is your objection to the NT's terminology:
whoever believes has eternal life, is not condemned; whoever does not believe is condemned (Jn 3:16, 18),
saved/righteousness by/through faith (Eph 2:8, Ro 1:17, 3:22, 4:5, 13, 9:30-32, 10:6; Gal 2:16, Php 3:9; Heb 11:7)?

And he saves by means of faith in himself. That is what John 3:16-21 teaches, so does Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul in his letters. Jesus is Saviour, not the Law, not Faith, nor Knowledge, Wisdom, Experience, Gifts, Ceremonies, Baptism, or anything else. Salvation is always and only by Jesus and through the means he stipulates. Jesus saves, he uses means such as faith to accomplish it.