Sufficient for all ?

[drstevej]

Can you explain why you do not agree with L?

I guess I would just like to understand where the logic (in your opinion) breaks down.

Thank you.

Reread my post. I do agree with the logic. There are a few texts that I do not see as fitting with the view (ex. 2 Peter 2:1).

 

[bsd058]

Reread my post. I do agree with the logic. There are a few texts that I do not see as fitting with the view (ex. 2 Peter 2:1).

I apologize. I misunderstood.

Have you considered the argument that states that the word despotes in this passage actually denotes rightful ownership, not redemption? That their Lord (as he is Lord/Master over everything) has rightful kingship over them, yet they deny him?

The buying I've understood to mean not buying by his blood in the sense of redeeming, but buying his right over them (as he has been made both Lord and Messiah).

I'm sure you have thought about this (considering you're a PhD), but I wanted to know what would you say to an argument like that?

 

[drstevej]

I apologize. I misunderstood.

Have you considered the argument that states that the word despotes in this passage actually denotes rightful ownership, not redemption? That their Lord (as he is Lord/Master over everything) has rightful kingship over them, yet they deny him?

The buying I've understood to mean not buying by his blood in the sense of redeeming, but buying his right over them (as he has been made both Lord and Messiah).

I'm sure you have thought about this (considering you're a PhD), but I wanted to know what would you say to an argument like that?

I am familiar with the view, but it does seem like a stretch as I have examined it.

 

[bsd058]

I am familiar with the view, but it does seem like a stretch as I have examined it.

Fair enough.

 

[JM]

I am familiar with the view, but it does seem like a stretch as I have examined it.

Does it seem like a stretch in light of the logic, that you already agree with and the scriptures that do teach the atonement of Christ was limited to a particular people?

 

[JustAsIam77]

I've changed my view of this subject but I certainly don't have a problem with anyone that holds to my old view like drstevej or Cyg, time to move on.

 

[drstevej]

I've changed my view of this subject but I certainly don't have a problem with anyone that holds to my old view like drstevej or Cyg, time to move on.

Wish you well.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

This is kind of a difficult subject, it seems there are good arguments and Scripture either way. I feel as JustAsIam77 expresses in post #66. Not trying to be argumentive, but there are hypothetical's in Scripture. A couple that come to mind, Abraham's hypothetical that God could raise his son to life. Abraham's pleading with God over Sodom and Gomorrah, and God even entertaining his hypothetical's which is strange because God already knew but anyway. The point here is that there are hypotheticals in Scripture, maybe we all agree, it's just a matter of whether there are any hypotheticals pertaining to the atonement, or whether by "all" it's meant "all of the sins of all of the elect".

One such difficult text is 1 Cor 15:21-22

1 Cor 15:21 For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive."

If I were a universalist, and I assure you I am not, this would be one of my proof texts. Sadly this is also used to proof text the doctrine of original sin, and I only say sadly because of the second part of verse 22 which on face value seems to teach universalism. From these two verses, it should be clear that Adam and Christ are both representatives of mankind. The difficulty is we're not applying the "all" which applies to Adam, to the "all" which applies to Christ. IOW, in Adam all of mankind fell, in Christ all of the elect shall be "made alive", the meaning of "all" is used in two different senses, or is it? How can Christ be a representative of all mankind, if the atonement be not sufficient for all?

Here is an interesting article for those interested: Definite atonement - Theopedia, an encyclopedia of Biblical Christianity

Read the John Owen quote it's mind blowing...my thought on Owen's quote, what about the "unpardonable sin"? Surely the elect will not indeed cannot commit the unpardonable sin.

...maybe someone can set me straight here.

 

[twin1954]

This is kind of a difficult subject, it seems there are good arguments and Scripture either way. I feel as JustAsIam77 expresses in post #66. Not trying to be argumentive, but there are hypothetical's in Scripture. A couple that come to mind, Abraham's hypothetical that God could raise his son to life. Abraham's pleading with God over Sodom and Gomorrah, and God even entertaining his hypothetical's which is strange because God already knew but anyway. The point here is that there are hypotheticals in Scripture, maybe we all agree, it's just a matter of whether there are any hypotheticals pertaining to the atonement, or whether by "all" it's meant "all of the sins of all of the elect".

I would argue that those examples aren't hypotheticals in a theological sense. In the first example you gave Abraham is simply living his faith. He knew the promise of God and knew the power of God to perform His promise. The second is an example of pleading for mercy rather than a "what if" though it is in the language of a "what if". The point being that it isn't speculating about what could happen. The question at hand is a matter of speculation and a true hypothetical of pointless purpose. No matter how you answer it no problems are solved.

One such difficult text is 1 Cor 15:21-22

1 Cor 15:21 For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive."

If I were a universalist, and I assure you I am not, this would be one of my proof texts. Sadly this is also used to proof text the doctrine of original sin, and I only say sadly because of the second part of verse 22 which on face value seems to teach universalism. From these two verses, it should be clear that Adam and Christ are both representatives of mankind. The difficulty is we're not applying the "all" which applies to Adam, to the "all" which applies to Christ. IOW, in Adam all of mankind fell, in Christ all of the elect shall be "made alive", the meaning of "all" is used in two different senses, or is it? How can Christ be a representative of all mankind, if the atonement be not sufficient for all?

Adam represents all born from him by natural generation, which is all mankind. Christ represents all that are born from Him by spiritual generation, which are the elect. Both represent all their progeny and both represent a definite number. It also applies to the Rom. 5 passages.

Here is an interesting article for those interested: Definite atonement - Theopedia, an encyclopedia of Biblical Christianity

Read the John Owen quote it's mind blowing...my thought on Owen's quote, what about the "unpardonable sin"? Surely the elect will not indeed cannot commit the unpardonable sin.

...maybe someone can set me straight here.

I will lok at the link and the quote when I have more time.