Universal Atonement Refuted

[cygnusx1]

Hey Cygnus. You seem to be loosing your cool. Just take a breath. What you are writing doesnt' help much.

WHAT?

 

[Reformationist]

What a ridiculous double standard many of you engage in:

Holdon: "I have no problem with all = all."

Cygnusx1: "so you follow the beast ? Rev. 13:3 informs us that all the world wondered after the beast,”

Holdon: "No, I don't follow the beast."

Cygnusx1: "so all the world doesn't include evryone does it !!!"

Now, this appears to be a clear cut case of Holdon being caught in a difficult position....but alas, he gets out of it by employing a ridiculous line of logic that differentiates between "earth" and "world." Now, I would not say this is so ridiculous under normal circumstances. After all, I am a reformed Christians and we acknowledge such variances in Scripture. However, when someone is so clearly denying that context often defines the word "all," it is ironic to me that that same person would acknowledge such a subtle difference between "earth" and "world." I said "ironic," not "surprising."

 

[holdon]

What a ridiculous double standard many of you engage in:

Holdon: "I have no problem with all = all."

Cygnusx1: "so you follow the beast ? Rev. 13:3 informs us that all the world wondered after the beast,”

Holdon: "No, I don't follow the beast."

Cygnusx1: "so all the world doesn't include evryone does it !!!"

Now, this appears to be a clear cut case of Holdon being caught in a difficult position....but alas, he gets out of it by employing a ridiculous line of logic that differentiates between "earth" and "world." Now, I would not say this is so ridiculous under normal circumstances. After all, I am a reformed Christians and we acknowledge such variances in Scripture. However, when someone is so clearly denying that context often defines the word "all," it is ironic to me that that same person would acknowledge such a subtle difference between "earth" and "world." I said "ironic," not "surprising."

So, why don't you attack Cygnus, because he made the switch from "earth" to "world" in Jn 3:16, and thus clearly he was wrong.

I am the first to acknowledge that context defines what "all" stands for, but in that context all = all. (I won't be there in the scenery of Rev 13 anyway, despite Cygnus allusions).

But do you really believe that God desires all men to be saved or not?

 

[cygnusx1]

The main problem I can see ......... maybe others have wondered , is when holdon is so pleased that the word 'Earth' is found in his translation (and world in mine) he just never tells us what 'earth' means !


Do we have any idea what the meaning of Earth is in the context of "all the earth wondered after the beast" Rev. 13:3

anyone know what it means ?

 

[Reformationist]

So, why don't you attack Cygnus, because he made the switch from "earth" to "world" in Jn 3:16, and thus clearly he was wrong.

I'm not "attacking" anyone. That's the game of those in this thread who have taken issue with reformed doctrine. As I stated, it is not necessarily wrong to differentiate between "earth" and "world." Point me to the post of Cygnus' that you refer to and I'll look at it.

I am the first to acknowledge that context defines what "all" stands for, but in that context all = all.

If you feel inclined, please show how the context demands that all = all.

But do you really believe that God desires all men to be saved or not?

Of course not. God is sovereign and He is the Creator. If God desired all people to be saved I take comfort in the knowledge that He could bring that to pass. In fact, Scripture is quite clear that God achieves all that He purposes. Are you, too, going to employ the bogus doubletalk of differentiating between what God desires and what God purposes?

 

[cygnusx1]

I am the first to acknowledge that context defines what "all" stands for, but in that context all = all. (I won't be there in the scenery of Rev 13 anyway, despite Cygnus allusions).

You are NOT the first to acknowledge that context defines what "all" stands for .......... have you forgotten ?


Quote:

Originally Posted by: cygnusx1

so you believe 'all' always means each and every single person ........... ?

and no I don't fight with God's word.

"So, when God says all, He doesn't mean all? Is that what you're saying?

I have no problem with all = all. That's all." holdon


all you seem to be doing is backtracking , because you know your arguement is void!

 

[holdon]

Quote:

But do you really believe that God desires all men to be saved or not?

Of course not. God is sovereign and He is the Creator. If God desired all people to be saved I take comfort in the knowledge that He could bring that to pass. In fact, Scripture is quite clear that God achieves all that He purposes. Are you, too, going to employ the bogus doubletalk of differentiating between what God desires and what God purposes?

So, you don't believe that God desires all men to be saved, contrary to Him explicitly saying so.
So, it is you who needs to show that that statement means something else: desire is not purpose; or all is not all; or men are not men.

What portion of God's saying do you dare to doubt?

 

[cygnusx1]

So, you don't believe that God desires all men to be saved, contrary to Him explicitly saying so.
So, it is you who needs to show that that statement means something else: desire is not purpose; or all is not all; or men are not men.

What portion of God's saying do you dare to doubt?

can you show me examples in Scripture of God desiring to destroy sinful humanity .......... I can think of quite a few ....... more to follow D.V.

 

[Reformationist]

So, you don't believe that God desires all men to be saved, contrary to Him explicitly saying so.
So, it is you who needs to show that that statement means something else: desire is not purpose; or all is not all; or men are not men.

What portion of God's saying do you dare to doubt?

I don't go to either a psychologist or a psychiatrist, nor do I desire to engage someone in conversation who answers my questions with a question.

If you have any desire to have a mature conversation, please address my recent questions.

Additionally, you don't speak for God. In light of that, when you say things like, "what portion of God's saying do you dare to doubt" you come off as a pompous buffoon. What I reject is your anthropocentric interpretation of Scripture and your feeble attempts at castigation.

 

[A Brother In Christ]

1. All for whom Christ died will be saved.
2. Some will not be saved.
3. Therefore, Christ did not die for all.

-bit

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his unquie kind of Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.

John 3:18 He that believeth on Him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already....

John 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am, ye shall die in your sins.

 

[Reformationist]

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his unquie kind of Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.

John 3:18 He that believeth on Him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already....

John 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am, ye shall die in your sins.

What is it that you feel these verses supports? Also, and this is just for my own curiosity, what translation renders John 3:16 with the words "He gave His unique kind of Son...?"

Thanks,
God bless

 

[A Brother In Christ]

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his unquie kind of Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.

God died for all.

John 3:18 He that believeth on Him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already....

Belief needed to access this..

John 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am, ye shall die in your sins.

if ones does not believe they are still in their sins

 

[Reformationist]

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his unquie kind of Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.

God died for all.

Umm....there is not a single thing in John 3:16 which indicates the extent of the atonement so what are you talking about? Do you simply mean that John 3:16 indicates that God loves everyone?

John 3:18 He that believeth on Him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already....

Belief needed to access this..

So you contend that Christ, God Incarnate, died for all mankind but the efficacy of the atonement is regulated by whether man believes, is that accurate? Tell me, what was Christ trying to accomplish by dying for all mankind, and, was He successful?

John 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am, ye shall die in your sins.

if ones does not believe they are still in their sins

Okay.

Any word on which translation you previously employed?

 

[A Brother In Christ]

Umm....there is not a single thing in John 3:16 which indicates the extent of the atonement so what are you talking about? Do you simply mean that John 3:16 indicates that God loves everyone?

what does loved the world mean to you

So you contend that Christ, God Incarnate, died for all mankind but the efficacy of the atonement is regulated by whether man believes, is that accurate? Tell me, what was Christ trying to accomplish by dying for all mankind, and, was He successful?

In doing so all men have an opportunity to accept or not ....

and since man is depravied he choses darkness over light everytime..John 3:19

thank God intervenes and saves some

God is always successful

Okay.

Any word on which translation you previously employed?

only begotten son

yet angels in Job are called sons of God and we the church are called sons of God also

so only begotten son is not correct

just being correct bya bible teacher who showed wrong wording there

 

[sojourner]

Reformationist,

Umm....there is not a single thing in John 3:16 which indicates the extent of the atonement so what are you talking about? Do you simply mean that John 3:16 indicates that God loves everyone?

there is no "extent" if one redefines the terms to fit a presupposition. In this case it is so universal that it includes the cosmos which then of course includes all of mankind as well.
We know that from other texts as well where all the created matter was redeemed. Man is created matter, Yes? Such texts as: Col 1:20, Eph 1:10; I Tim 4:10.
And, Yes, God does love everyone. God is love. His love is so great that He died for us when we were yet sinners.

So you contend that Christ, God Incarnate, died for all mankind but the efficacy of the atonement is regulated by whether man believes, is that accurate? Tell me, what was Christ trying to accomplish by dying for all mankind, and, was He successful?

Is this because you believe that the whole was unnecessary? That man somehow has a hand in the Work of Christ on the Cross?

As per scripture, Christ did in fact die for all men, mankind. He restored all men to life from the judgement of Adam which was death. He in fact accomplished it completely, efficaciously without the help of man whatsoever. He saved absolutely everyone, without exception. Not a single human being will ever be destroyed. None bearing His Image will be destroyed.
Can you show such a great love, such a completed work with a limited redemption, a limited atonement, a limited salvation of man.
So far no Calvinist has explained this view theologically. You gave a try, had a partial answer but woefully incomplete. You have had some time to think about it, have you?

 

[Raz]

As per scripture, Christ did in fact die for all men, mankind. He restored all men to life from the judgement of Adam which was death. He in fact accomplished it completely, efficaciously without the help of man whatsoever. He saved absolutely everyone, without exception. Not a single human being will ever be destroyed. None bearing His Image will be destroyed.
Can you show such a great love, such a completed work with a limited redemption, a limited atonement, a limited salvation of man.
So far no Calvinist has explained this view theologically. You gave a try, had a partial answer but woefully incomplete. You have had some time to think about it, have you?

Now I can respect this. At least you are admitting that if Christ died for someone, then they are saved, no if's and's, or but's. Universal Atonement is much more consistent than unlimited atonement.

What view have Calvinists not explained theologically? That universal atonement is 'mo betta lovin' than limited atonement? This seems to be based on the presuppositon that mo luv is mo betta'. So if God doesn't show as much love as He possibly can, and if He doesn't trump all His other attributes like justice and wrath with His love, then He's not a 'good' God? At the cross, did God trump His justice with His love? Or were both displayed equally? Why did the cross have to be so bloody and greusome, if God only likes displaying His love?

 

[sojourner]

Raz,

What view have Calvinists not explained theologically?

That the Gospel from the beginning has always taught and believed in the universality of Christ's Work on the Cross. That He redeemed mankind from the fall. That He came to save sinners. That He loved mankind even when we were still sinners.
The unstated reason is that Satan would have triumphed if Christ did not save mankind. Christ came to save man, God's most cherished creation, created in His Image as well as the created universe from total destruction.

What Calvinists on this board, as yet have not explained, is how Christ only saved some. That in His Incarnation, assuming our human natures, became consubstantial with man as was Adam, since he was a human being, saved every soul that ever lived from the fall. How consubstantiality can then be limited. Or, how can Christ limit who he saves from the fall when He assume our human natures. My additional statement to some where, are there some human that are not like some others in that Christ saved only the some, even though He was then consubstantial with that particular kind of human. Lots of contradictions come about then. Did God create more than one kind human being. Both in His Image or just some in His Image, those in His Image would be saved from the fall. Adam thus was in His Image. Where are the others. Who are the others, non-believers?

This seems to be based on the presuppositon that mo luv is mo betta'.

You could say that. From the historical understanding of the consubstantiality and universality of the Incarnation, versus the Calvinists view that only those redeemed, the elect, will also be the same ones saved, offered salvation. Thus in their view the non-believers were not redeemed. If not redeemed they remain in the Adamic state which is destruction, annihilation of the human being. Death, physical death is separation of body and soul. Since they have not been redeemed, given immortality through Christ's resurrection, they will never be raised. They cease to exist.
God in effect has destroyed part of Himself. He has destroyed a creature that bears His Image.
That is why I made the statement of more love. Calvinists limit God's love, when God's love is never removed from His created creatures even in hell.
Additionally to that I also stated that one cannot have a hell unless one has universal redemption.
Calvinists believe only redeemed are saved, but all others, non-believers are destroyed, never reaching judgement nor hell.
They all died unjustly. They died not because of their choice but because of the universal death sentence against Adam. Christ removed this judgement so that all men could be free from that bondage and be able to make the choice of their own free will and then bear the consequences of their refusal. That is true justice. God does not desire to destroy mankind, any man, surely not for what he was not responsible for.
Thus the choice is all man's. He actively accepts or rejects the great Gift of Christ.
If man accepts he enters into a relationship which is the reason for Christ's saving work. That man could again be in Union, communion, be joined with God through Christ as was Adam before he sinned. This is the created purpose of man's very existance.

So if God doesn't show as much love as He possibly can, and if He doesn't trump all His other attributes like justice and wrath with His love, then He's not a 'good' God? At the cross, did God trump His justice with His love? Or were both displayed equally?

Several things. His love for His created creatures bearing His Image will be saved from destruction. His justice would be true justice, man can be held accountable for his actions and not attributed to someone else unjustly.
And all men will be called, given the opportunity to fulful that created mandate, to be in Union with God.

Why did the cross have to be so bloody and greusome, if God only likes displaying His love?

He accomplished two things by his death. He rose again, thus overcomeing the death sentence against our human nature. His blood shed also atoned for the spiritual death resulting from our personal sins. Having freed us from Adam, given life, we would still sin in this life and in order to have communion with God in this life the penalty needed to be satisfied. Christ fulfilled that so that sins can be forgiven through His atonement. In the OT blood is life. We gain life through His blood shed. That is why we partake of His Body and Blood. We are connected ontologically and organically with Christ.
I hope that helps and brings you up to date on this thread.

 

[Elect]

Mianii ceniteredii Gosipel


How many "i" are there in the above statement?

 

[cygnusx1]

Mianii ceniteredii Gosipel


How many "i" are there in the above statement?

7

 

[brad_religion]

The scriptural evidence that Christ died for all mankind seems overwhelming.

How does the limited atonement position handle for instance the following passages:

These issues are very intense. There are different possibilities, but only 1 can really be true.

Possibility #1 - Christ died for all sins of all men, but because of man's "free will", salvation is dependent on a choice from man's will, not solely what Jesus did on the cross. If Jesus died for all men, but not all men will be saved, Jesus failed.

Possibility #2 - Christ died for some sins of some men, so therefore, man is still required to do his part to be "saved". This means that Christ's sacrifice did NOT atone for our sins. Jesus would falsely be called the saviour of the world in that case.

Possibility #3 - Christ died for some sins of all men, so like #2, the "elect" are still required to "work" for their salvation by whether they believe, or do works. In this case, the election of God does NOT stand, thus Jesus failed.

Possibility #4 - Christ died for all the sins of some men. This would be the doctrine of "limited atonement". While this is something that can be seen in places like John 10 and Ephesians 5, there is just too much evidence that Christ's sacrifice was for ALL men. Like that person said, how could Jesus have "bought" those false teachers that according to calvinists will "not" be saved? This is a problem.

Possibility #5- Christ died for all the sins of all men, and God's desire is that all men are saved, and if God is sovereign, then His will happens in spite of what men do. This would mean God would be "all in all", and the mission Jesus came to accomplish would be accomplished fully. This would mean salvation is truly by Christ alone, and nothing man does can change it. This would mean God is sovereign and all men will be saved. This is the only plausible possibility. Jesus consistently told his followers to "love your enemies" and to "forgive those who trespass against you". Why would Jesus command his followers to do something, if the Father in heaven were to not do the same thing? The one thing I know is that God is not a hypocrite! If God doesn't forgive all men, then neither should we forgive all men. If God doesn't love his enemies, then neither should we love our enemies. Notice, scripture says God loved us first. God already forgave the unrighteous steward, before the steward forgave his debtor. If a person doesn't obey the word of God, they suffer things in THIS life for it, not some afterlife. As Paul clearly said in 1st Corinthians 3, all men will be judged by their works. Yet, if men are judged by their works, is that to say that their works are what saves them? Nope. They are judged by their works solely, because Christ died for ALL men, and ALL men will be saved, but as Paul said, they will "suffer" loss if their works burn up. Why would God burn up works? Because those works are "works of the flesh" found in 1st Corinthians 6 and Revelation 21/22. If you notice, those who are at the great white throne in Revelation 20 are "judged each man according to his own works". That is identical to who Paul is speaking about in 1st Corinthians 3. Therefore, all men will be judged by their works, and thus, if all their works "burn up", they themselves will be saved.

Another example is the man who committed fornication with his father's wife in 1st Corinthians 5. Paul told them to deliver him to the adversary for destruction of the flesh, so his spirit might be saved. Then, in the very next chapter, Paul said that many types of people would not "inherit the kingdom of God", and includes "fornicators", the very sin he addressed in 1st Corinthians 5. Yet, the man would still be saved, even if he did not inherit the kingdom of God. Makes you wonder.