Limited Atonement and it's faults

[Xeno.of.athens]

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)?

None.
Christians are both saved by Jesus Christ through faith in him and not condemned because they have believed in the Only-Son of God.
"By" and "through" are not the same word; they differ in meaning as well as in spelling
One is saved by Grace through faith, says the scripture, and the scripture also says that the Lord, Jesus Christ, brought grace upon grace in his incarnation - the Grace of God is Jesus Christ. John 1:16 From his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace.

 

[Mark Quayle]

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

So, let's see....a translation of a translation. I'm wondering if it is the Latin that is paraphrased or the RCC Bible. Either way, a translation of a translation is tenuous work. —A definite difference between the Greek and the RCC Bible. The Greek renders:

Quoting from post #22 your quote of the RCC, or Douay-Rheims, Latin Vulgate, Knox Bible, or whatever it was, as you said translated from the Latin, renders: 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."

But the Greek renders: "17 Not for sent God his son into the world that he might judge the world but that might be saved the world through him. 18 The [one] believing on him is not judged; the [one] but not believing already has been judged because not he has believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 This now is the judgement that the light has come into the world, and loved men rather the darkness; were for them evil the deeds." or to translate:

Verse 17
Literal Standard Version
For God did not send His Son into the world that He may judge the world, but that the world may be saved through Him;

Berean Literal Bible
For God did not send His Son into the world that He might judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.

Young's Literal Translation
For God did not send His Son to the world that he may judge the world, but that the world may be saved through him;

Smith's Literal Translation
For God sent not his Son into the world that he judge the world; but that the world might be saved through him.

Literal Emphasis Translation
For God did not send His Son into the world so that He might judge the world, but so that the world might be saved through Him.

These show God's purpose in sending his Son, with no reference to time —"when"—as your paraphrase has it, nor does it say that anyone "found" salvation, as your paraphrase has it.

Verse 18 takes does the same thing in your paraphrase; I will contrast just one to keep this short:
Literal Standard Version
he who is believing in Him is not judged, but he who is not believing has been judged already, because he has not believed in the Name of the only begotten Son of God. —No mention of "found faith".

Verse 19:
Literal Standard Version
And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light, for their works were evil;

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

So, let's see....a translation of a translation.

While this is true, it is also misleading because as I explained to @Clare73, the Western Text is one of the major sources for textual criticism, and besides that, the text of the four gospels is in Greek in the Western Text.

Only one Greek Uncial manuscript is considered to transmit a Western text for the four Gospels and the Book of Acts, the fifth century Codex Bezae; the sixth century Codex Claromontanus is considered to transmit a Western text for the letters of Saint Paul and is followed by two ninth century Uncials: F and G. Many "Western" readings are also found in the Old Syriac translations of the Gospels, the Sinaitic and the Curetonian, though opinions vary as to whether these versions can be considered witnesses to the Western text-type. A number of fragmentary early papyri from Egypt also have Western readings, 29, 38, 48; and in addition, Codex Sinaiticus is considered to be Western in the first eight chapters of John. The term "Western" is a bit of a misnomer because members of the Western text-type have been found in the Christian East, including Syria.[2] (Western text-type - Wikipedia)​

John 3:16-21 is in the first 8 chapters of John's gospel as witnessed by the translation of Ronald Knox.

I do not mean to be critical when I ask, are you unfamiliar with textual criticism and with the Knox Bible and its place among significant English Translations?

 

[Mark Quayle]

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."​

"His church" there, being the RCC, I guess? Are there any others saved, that do not attend to the RCC?

Anyhow, to the point, I don't see the relevance. If I asked whether that was just you, or the RCC, and you give me the RCC about something, to my mind unrelated to the view I was asking about, I don't see that as an answer. But it's ok. Carry on.

 

[Mark Quayle]

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.

Arminianistic (I didn't say Arminian) RCC sees things through a filter, an assumption, of insistent self-determination. I hope some day you can see it.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Arminianistic (I didn't say Arminian) RCC sees things through a filter, an assumption, of insistent self-determination. I hope some day you can see it.

I deserved that, it was unkind of me to say that the filter of Calvinist theology was affecting your posts, though, in truth, your posts do reflect Calvinism.

 

[Mark Quayle]

While this is true, it is also misleading because as I explained to @Clare73, the Western Text is one of the major sources for textual criticism, and besides that, the text of the four gospels is in Greek in the Western Text.

Only one Greek Uncial manuscript is considered to transmit a Western text for the four Gospels and the Book of Acts, the fifth century Codex Bezae; the sixth century Codex Claromontanus is considered to transmit a Western text for the letters of Saint Paul and is followed by two ninth century Uncials: F and G. Many "Western" readings are also found in the Old Syriac translations of the Gospels, the Sinaitic and the Curetonian, though opinions vary as to whether these versions can be considered witnesses to the Western text-type. A number of fragmentary early papyri from Egypt also have Western readings, 29, 38, 48; and in addition, Codex Sinaiticus is considered to be Western in the first eight chapters of John. The term "Western" is a bit of a misnomer because members of the Western text-type have been found in the Christian East, including Syria.[2] (Western text-type - Wikipedia)​

John 3:16-21 is in the first 8 chapters of John's gospel as witnessed by the translation of Ronald Knox.

I do not mean to be critical when I ask, are you unfamiliar with textual criticism and with the Knox Bible and its place among significant English Translations?

All that is very impressive. Can you show how any of that is relevant to the wording differences I give you in post #62?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

"His church" there, being the RCC, I guess? Are there any others saved, that do not attend to the RCC?

You might want to read more of Bishop Challoner's works to decide that question. I recommend He revised the Douay Rheims Bible, and wrote

The grounds of the Catholick doctrine : contained in the profession of faith, publish'd by Pope Pius the Fourth, by way of question and answer : Challoner, Richard, 1691-1781 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

With: Reasons for becoming a Roman Catholic / Frederick Lucas

archive.org

 

[Mark Quayle]

I deserved that, it was unkind of me to say that the filter of Calvinist theology was affecting your posts, though, in truth, your posts do reflect Calvinism.

I readily admit to a filter. Any of us have one; it is part of what keeps us from too quickly taking for our own whatever sounds good at the moment. It is part of wisdom to be careful about such things.

Furthermore, there are certain truths that to me are precious, and certain truths that stand to reason and agree with scripture. That they sound Calvinistic, I really don't care. I didn't get them by that route. But the Grace of God shouts to me from Scripture and from Reason and from Experience. I can't avoid it. This is all, without any exception, the work of God, even if it wears me out.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

All that is very impressive. Can you show how any of that is relevant to the wording differences I give you in post #62?

Yes, of course, visit Vulgate - Douay-Rheims - Knox Bible side by side

 

[Mark Quayle]

You might want to read more of Bishop Challoner's works to decide that question. I recommend He revised the Douay Rheims Bible, and wrote

The grounds of the Catholick doctrine : contained in the profession of faith, publish'd by Pope Pius the Fourth, by way of question and answer : Challoner, Richard, 1691-1781 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

With: Reasons for becoming a Roman Catholic / Frederick Lucas

archive.org

I would have preferred an answer. I rebel against sales tactics. Maybe that's a little mean of me to say, but I have dismissed relatives' suggestions for the same reason. I like you, but I don't like that.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I readily admit to a filter.

Thank you.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I would have preferred an answer.

It is a direct answer, click and notice it opens at John chapter 3.

Oops, with so many posts being exchanged, I misread this one. What I gave in the Challoner post is a reference to one of his works that is relevant to John 3. The work answers your question about his meaning for "His Church" in the quote I supplied. HIs works will tell you how he uses the expression. He wrote in the 18th century. It is likely he was intending his works to be read by Catholics, because at the time he wrote Catholicism was illegal in England - his homeland - and he was exiled for fear of execution by the Crown. But when he did return to England he ministered disguised as a layman in London. Challoner ministered to his flock there, celebrating mass secretly in obscure ale-houses, cockpits, and wherever small gatherings could assemble without exciting remark. In this regard, he was an untiring worker, and spent much time in the poorest quarters of the town and in the prisons. His life was not an easy one, being a member of a persecuted minority in England.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I rebel against sales tactics. Maybe that's a little mean of me to say, but I have dismissed relatives' suggestions for the same reason. I like you, but I don't like that.

It bothers me that your responses are more hostile lately than they were a month or two ago. And that your earlier posts were more reflective and less harsh than your current posts are. And I have noticed that in your replies to others the content of your posts has returned to the former - poorly informed - modes of expression about Catholic teaching and the militant expression of Calvinist views. But perhaps I am not reading enough of your current output to have a more charitable view of your current activity.

 

[Mark Quayle]

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,

I took her point to be implied, which is why I added the "editor's note" that I did: That the minimalist notion of condemnation of individuals apart from payment for their sins is the only payment, is not found in Scripture without whatever one interprets that way, contradicting other scripture.

"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.

For whatever it is worth: The fact that Jesus didn't come into the world to condemn the world does not relieve them of guilt for their sins. They are already condemned several ways, to include payment for their sins. Likewise, that Jesus came into the world to save the world shows not just his kindness, but his purpose —that the ones believing —yes, in the name of the Son of God, (lest I eviscerate the passage)— would have life through him.

No doubt this will seem something of a reach, from your POV, but God loves his creation, or he wouldn't have made it. But he is very particular about some of it. Those vessels made for one purpose are not part of that —but there are other vessels made to become his particular creation, the rest of creation being a tool in bringing it about: the Dwelling Place of God, the Bride of Christ, the Body of Christ. So, when I hear "God loves the world", I don't hear a generic goodwill, with no particular direction or effect. And lest you think "filter" applies there, I thought of this long before I thought of anything particularly Calvinistic-like. It is as plain as it can be throughout scripture, that God has particular plans and affections toward his particular people.

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.

Well, no. If memory serves, I think I said that I had reasoned that it must be so, since I reasoned that Christ had intended for everyone to be saved or "it wasn't fair". I don't think I mentioned any particular reading of John 3:16 in my thinking. But maybe I wasn't clear. Regardless, one false notion led false reasoning, and thence, a false filter, but nagging questions kept at me, via good reasoning and solid assumptions, such as the absolute sovereignty of God, and so on.

 

[Mark Quayle]

It bothers me that your responses are more hostile lately than they were a month or two ago. And that your earlier posts were more reflective and less harsh than your current posts are. And I have noticed that in your replies to others the content of your posts has returned to the former - poorly informed - modes of expression about Catholic teaching and the militant expression of Calvinist views. But perhaps I am not reading enough of your current output to have a more charitable view of your current activity.

When you and I began exchanges, you were quoting from what I took to be Catholic Authoritative sources of Doctrine. I liked much of it, but now and then saw in your answers a little ambivalence, and from Catholic practices sometimes considerable ambivalence. Perhaps you remember me mentioning the balancing on the fence rail and even attempts to straddle both sides. I don't like the "sort of"-type notions that present. I thought I made that very clear from the beginning. Then you went to the extent of even ascribing heresy and so on, concerning certain precepts of Calvinism to which I also held (at least, I took it that it was from you —perhaps I was mistaken. I do recall someone saying something to the effect that if they had more authority they would call what I had said heresy—I am sorry, if that was not you.).

For a while after that, as I remember, I began avoiding exchanges with you for the most part, as they would seem to me unproductive. Now I have begun again as I see the need for correction concerning the truth, as you have begun multiple threads presenting opposition, even condemnation, to things I believe; and, of course, and as usual, I can't seem to help chiming in when @Clare73 is around.

I do, in spite of what it might seem, appreciate your frank assessment of my manner of delivery of late. Thank you for that.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

When you and I began exchanges, you were quoting from what I took to be Catholic Authoritative sources of Doctrine. I liked much of it, but now and then saw in your answers a little ambivalence, and from Catholic practices sometimes considerable ambivalence.

Yet you complained at least once that the answers were not what I believed, what I thought, what my opinions were. And after having given sufficient official church teaching I thought I'd leave that as a written testimony and pursue the opinion/personal side of things. The truth is that there's not a hair's breadth between the two, but the latter is more informal in expression. It is confusing - which do you really want? Seems neither will meet your apparently changing desires. But that is no matter, I shall type according to my wits, you must read according to yours. If it pleases or enrages or just bores is no matter, one cannot always please one's readers.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I took it that it was from you —perhaps I was mistaken. I do recall someone saying something to the effect that if they had more authority they would call what I had said heresy

It was another Catholic who was more "fundamental" in expressing his/her views, and was possibly leaning towards sedevacantism (Traditional Latin Mass, rejection of the documents and validity of Vatican II, and usually ends in schism).

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

For a while after that, as I remember, I began avoiding exchanges with you for the most part, as they would seem to me unproductive. Now I have begun again as I see the need for correction concerning the truth, as you have begun multiple threads presenting opposition, even condemnation, to things I believe; and, of course, and as usual, I can't seem to help chiming in when @Clare73 is around.

I do, in spite of what it might seem, appreciate your frank assessment of my manner of delivery of late. Thank you for that.

What to say in reply to this? I always regarded the L of Tulip as especially problematic for the reasons I have consistently presented since I first posted on this forum - which is not so long ago. But I also regard the T and the U and the I and the P as containing problematic material and in some cases material that, when read from with Calvin's Institutes and subsequent Reformed works, is unquestionably heretical. But of course, You do not share my views regarding truth, nor can you share my views regarding heresy, so I do not expect you to cheer my posts nor to accept the reasoning in them for the reasons I have previously stated. It is not my role in this world nor in the forum to "convert" people who have views such as yours, I may pray for such a change of thinking and I do in fact do that but only as an occasional part in prayers that are for your blessing and happiness in God. Such is life, I do not intend to divorce my posts from my thinking and my beliefs; to do so is to be unfaithful to myself, and I think to God.

 

[Mark Quayle]

It is a direct answer, click and notice it opens at John chapter 3.

Oops, with so many posts being exchanged, I misread this one. What I gave in the Challoner post is a reference to one of his works that is relevant to John 3. The work answers your question about his meaning for "His Church" in the quote I supplied. HIs works will tell you how he uses the expression. He wrote in the 18th century. It is likely he was intending his works to be read by Catholics, because at the time he wrote Catholicism was illegal in England - his homeland - and he was exiled for fear of execution by the Crown. But when he did return to England he ministered disguised as a layman in London. Challoner ministered to his flock there, celebrating mass secretly in obscure ale-houses, cockpits, and wherever small gatherings could assemble without exciting remark. In this regard, he was an untiring worker, and spent much time in the poorest quarters of the town and in the prisons. His life was not an easy one, being a member of a persecuted minority in England.

So the answer to my question is, yes it is the POV of the RCC? I expect then too, this is your POV too?