Help on Limited Atonement

[Kevin Wayne]

More Gill on 1 Timothy 4:10:

1i. Another passage in the same epistle is sometimes brought in favour of the general scheme (1 Tim. 4:10), where God is said to be "the Saviour of all men"; but the passage is not to be understood of Christ, and of spiritual and eternal salvation by him; which it is certain all men do not share in; but of God the Father, and of temporal salvation by him; and of his preservation of all his creatures; who is the "preserver of men", supports and upholds them in being, and supplies them with the necessaries of life; and in a providential way is "good to all"; but his providence is extended in a special manner towards those that trust and believe in him; he takes a particular care of them, and makes particular provisions for them; these being his people, his portion, and the lot of his inheritance, like Israel of old, he surrounds them by his power, leads them about by his wisdom, and keeps them as tenderly as the apple of his eye.

http://www.pbministries.org/books/gi...6/book6_04.htm

This is an example of why I threw Gill out of my e-sword & replaced him with Matthew Henry.


Throughout the above quote, Gill postulates the idea of a “temporal salvation” and of “preservation” with no support from the text whatsoever .


Because of Gill’s habit in pulling things out of thin air that he doesn’t support, I got rid of him. Sad too, since I wanted to have a good Calvinist & Arminian (Clarke) expositor to refer to on any given text, but Gill reeks with personal opinion.


Btw, here’s Matt Henry on the v.10 text:

_______________

We trust in the living God. The consideration of this, that the God who has undertaken to be our pay-master is the living God, who does himself live for ever and is the fountain of life to all who serve him, should encourage us in all our services and in all our sufferings for him, especially considering that he is the Saviour of all men. (1.) By his providences he protects the persons, and prolongs the lives, of the children of men. (2.) He has a general good-will to the eternal salvation of all men thus far that he is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. He desires not the death of sinners; he is thus far the Saviour of all men that none are left in the same desperate condition that fallen angels are in. Now, if he be thus the Saviour of all men, we may hence infer that much more he will be the rewarder of those who seek and serve him; if he has such a good-will for all his creatures, much more will he provide well for those who are new creatures, who are born again. He is the Saviour of all men, but especially of those that believe; and the salvation he has in store for those that believe is sufficient to recompense them for all their services and sufferings. Here we see, [1.] The life of a Christian is a life of labour and suffering: We labour and suffer. [2.] The best we can expect to suffer in the present life is reproach for our well-doing, for our work of faith and labour of love. [3.] True Christians trust in the living God; for cursed is the man that trusts in man, or in any but the living God; and those that trust in him shall never be ashamed. Trust in him at all times. [4.] God is the general Saviour of all men, as he has put them into a salvable state; but he is in a particular manner the Saviour of true believers; there is then a general and a special redemption.

_____________



And here's Adam Clarke:




__________

1Ti 4:10 -

For therefore we both labor - This verse was necessary to explain what he had before said; and here he shows that his meaning was not that the followers of God should enjoy worldly prosperity and exemption from natural evils; for, said he, it is because we exercise ourselves to godliness that we have both labor and reproach, and we have these because we trust In the living God: but still we have mental happiness, and all that is necessary for our passage through life; for in the midst of persecutions and afflictions we have the peace of God that passeth knowledge, and have all our crosses and sufferings so sanctified to us that we consider them in the number of our blessings.

Who is the Savior of all men - Who has provided salvation for the whole human race, and has freely offered it to them in his word and by his Spirit.

Specially of those that believe - What God intends for All, he actually gives to them that believe in Christ, who died for the sins of the world, and tasted death for every man. As all have been purchased by his blood so all may believe; and consequently all may be saved. Those that perish, perish through their own fault.

[TheAnalogman]

[infide]

Calvinism really isn't this difficult to understand. It is merely a biblical expression of Trinitarian soteriology. When one rejects it one rejects Christian Trinitarianism, which was the foundation of the condemnation of Arminius. We believe there isn't any disagreement in the Godhead. However, Arminianism demands a disagreement, which is best expressed by Grotius and his "moral government theory."

While modern Arminianism, following after Grotius, is nominally Trinitarian it is doctrinally Unitarian, which is the foundation of the whole problem. If you wish to understand Calvinism you must understand it in terms of the Trinity, otherwise it is incomprehensible. There is no way to explain a trinitarian doctrine in unitarian terms, or challenge it in unitarian terms, and have any agreement in meaning, we are talking about two completely and entirely different concepts of the Godhead and His saving work.

John Calvin held that the definition of the incarnation of Jesus Christ into human flesh was correctly defined in the Chalcedon Creed, he cannot be understood outside of his fidelity to that definition. If you want to challenge Calvinism, that is fine, but at least do it honestly and not as some guerilla fighter for humanism arguing over vagaries of a couple nouns and pronouns &c.

To disprove Calvinism you are going to have to show how and why the biblical definition of the incarnation of Jesus Christ in the Chalcedon Creed is incorrect. You are going to have to show why and how there is disagreement in the Trinity.

This is much much bigger than anyones opinions on the words "all", "ours" and "world." Calvinists define those terms the way we do because it is necessary to express a consistent Trinitarian doctrine of soteriology. Our Christology rests absolutely upon this foundation and is consistent with the Christian definition of the Trinity.

If you want to support a different Christology at least do it honestly and contrast it to our Christology and show us where we are incorrect.

Calvinism is a slam dunk on the playing field of Chalcedon, you can't come on this playing field arguing it's a "free throw," because that denies the playing field without supporting the free throw argument. You're a guerilla fighter and we have rules to the game, you foul to get the ball and then get offended when the referree gives the free throw to the Calvinist!

I used to preach against Calvinism, railed it against it - I spent nearly ten years studing this and finally had to repent. Calvinism is the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

If it's not then you have to explain why Jesus Christ is not God manifest in the flesh. Everything else is just blabbering.

Nonsense. There is no rationale for declaring that Arminians are non-Trinitarians, nor that Arminianism posits some kind of disagreement in the Trinity.

Why dont you explain this apparent disagreement, and I will be glad to refute you. The fact is, many Arminians are ardent defenders of Trinitarian doctrine, and that so consistantly (self-included).

Nor do I deny Chalcedon's definition.

Nor does the Arminian deny that Christ is God manifested in the flesh. This is, of course, a nuanced and difficult problem - and not even the Calvinists are consistant on that matter.

peace,
jd

[Kevin Wayne]

Nonsense. There is no rationale for declaring that Arminians are non-Trinitarians, nor that Arminianism posits some kind of disagreement in the Trinity.

Why dont you explain this apparent disagreement, and I will be glad to refute you. The fact is, many Arminians are ardent defenders of Trinitarian doctrine, and that so consistantly (self-included).

Nor do I deny Chalcedon's definition.

Nor does the Arminian deny that Christ is God manifested in the flesh. This is, of course, a nuanced and difficult problem - and not even the Calvinists are consistant on that matter.

peace,
jd

If he would ever read Clark Pinnock's Flame of Love he would SO see how wrong he is! Pinnock's picture of of what the Trinity is is very touching and VERY theo-logical .

[Nang]

Nonsense. There is no rationale for declaring that Arminians are non-Trinitarians, nor that Arminianism posits some kind of disagreement in the Trinity.

Arminians consider themselves to be good Trinitarians, but they often abuse the Trinity by placing the Persons of the Triune Godhead at odds.

The most glaring example is their erroneous teaching that:

1. The Father loves all men and women.
2. Jesus Christ died for all men and women.
3. The Holy Spirit fails to call all men and women with the Gospel; fails to convict all men and women thereby bringing them to repentance, and thereby fails to convince all men and women of salvation.

This insults God.

Anyone who truly grasps the covenantal and consistent workings of the three Persons of the Godhead understands this doctrine cannot stand, and that the Trinity is not understood, let alone appreciated by Arminian teachers.

Nor does the Arminian deny that Christ is God manifested in the flesh. This is, of course, a nuanced and difficult problem - and not even the Calvinists are consistant on that matter

In what way do you believe Calvinists are inconsistant regarding the incarnation?

Nang

[Colossians]

Seer,

If Christ took upon Him the sins of every individual, then those sins are paid for. Seeing that they cannot be paid for twice, no individual could rightfully be punished by God. Arminians illegally modify this to say that in order for your sins to be paid for, you have to believe they are paid for, thus in effect retrospectively altering the amount of sin on the cross. There is no corresponding legal philosophy for such a concoction. So the fact remains, once sin is paid for it is irrreversibly paid for.
That does not follow. Unbelief is the one sin that separates one for the very work of Christ. Look at it this way...Christ paid for your sins 2000 years ago. Yet while you were in unbelief Christ's death did not benefit you at all - you were under God's wrath. So your assumptions fail...
You are suggesting the cart can go before the horse.
In order for my unbelief to be placed upon Him, it had to actually occur in time: the sins of unbelief which Christ bore were actual events past present and future, not merely potential events. There are no doubt still more to come from my old man who was judged at Calvary.

You are confusing the causal with the temporal.
Causally I was under God's wrath, and had been accordingly judged as guilty in Christ, and exonerated in His resurrection.
Temporally I was never under God's wrath, attested to by His message of love toward me in time.
When I found out about it in time plays no part in the cause: it is merely the effect in time.


So it remains that the sins paid for by Christ, are irreversibly paid for. God is legally oblidged to accept as innocent those whose sins were paid for. To do otherwise, is to dishonour His Son. Such legal obligation results in His sending the Holy Spirit to reconcile my life with the fact that Christ has in advance paid for my sins.

[seer]

You are suggesting the cart can go before the horse.
In order for my unbelief to be placed upon Him, it had to actually occur in time: the sins of unbelief which Christ bore were actual events past present and future, not merely potential events. There are no doubt still more to come from my old man who was judged at Calvary.

You are confusing the causal with the temporal.
Causally I was under God's wrath, and had been accordingly judged as guilty in Christ, and exonerated in His resurrection.
Temporally I was never under God's wrath, attested to by His message of love toward me in time.
When I found out about it in time plays no part in the cause: it is merely the effect in time.

See, you have to make stuff up. Scripture says nothing about Temporally or Causally. Whatever that is supposed to mean. You were under God's wrath period. Christ's work on the cross was of no saving benefit to you until you believed.

Let me ask you something - can God love a man or men, then not love them?

[Kevin Wayne]

Arminians consider themselves to be good Trinitarians, but they often abuse the Trinity by placing the Persons of the Triune Godhead at odds.

The most glaring example is their erroneous teaching that:

1. The Father loves all men and women.
2. Jesus Christ died for all men and women.
3. The Holy Spirit fails to call all men and women with the Gospel; fails to convict all men and women thereby bringing them to repentance, and thereby fails to convince all men and women of salvation.

This insults God.

Anyone who truly grasps the covenantal and consistent workings of the three Persons of the Godhead understands this doctrine cannot stand, and that the Trinity is not understood, let alone appreciated by Arminian teachers.


Nang

What you have presented is simply an extrapolation of the Arminian view of the Trinity based on a rhetorical need to prove a point. NOT the thing itself....

Once again, I refer you to the book by Pinnock.

[seer]

The most glaring example is their erroneous teaching that:

1. The Father loves all men and women.
2. Jesus Christ died for all men and women.
3. The Holy Spirit fails to call all men and women with the Gospel; fails to convict all men and women thereby bringing them to repentance, and thereby fails to convince all men and women of salvation.

This insults God.

Nonsense. You believe that God forces men to love Him. And that dishonors God.

[Kevin Wayne]

Seer,

If Christ took upon Him the sins of every individual, then those sins are paid for. Seeing that they cannot be paid for twice, no individual could rightfully be punished by God. Arminians illegally modify this to say that in order for your sins to be paid for, you have to believe they are paid for, thus in effect retrospectively altering the amount of sin on the cross. There is no corresponding legal philosophy for such a concoction. So the fact remains, once sin is paid for it is irrreversibly paid for.
That does not follow. Unbelief is the one sin that separates one for the very work of Christ. Look at it this way...Christ paid for your sins 2000 years ago. Yet while you were in unbelief Christ's death did not benefit you at all - you were under God's wrath. So your assumptions fail...
You are suggesting the cart can go before the horse.
In order for my unbelief to be placed upon Him, it had to actually occur in time: the sins of unbelief which Christ bore were actual events past present and future, not merely potential events. There are no doubt still more to come from my old man who was judged at Calvary.

You are confusing the causal with the temporal.
Causally I was under God's wrath, and had been accordingly judged as guilty in Christ, and exonerated in His resurrection.
Temporally I was never under God's wrath, attested to by His message of love toward me in time.
When I found out about it in time plays no part in the cause: it is merely the effect in time.


So it remains that the sins paid for by Christ, are irreversibly paid for. God is legally oblidged to accept as innocent those whose sins were paid for. To do otherwise, is to dishonour His Son. Such legal obligation results in His sending the Holy Spirit to reconcile my life with the fact that Christ has in advance paid for my sins.

DEAD wrong. God isn't legally obliged to anything:


Matt 18:21 Then Peter came to Him and said, "Lord, how many times could my brother sin against me and I forgive him? As many as seven times?" 22 "I tell you, not as many as seven," Jesus said to him, "but 70 times seven. 23 For this reason, the kingdom of heaven can be compared to a king who wanted to settle accounts with his slaves. 24 When he began to settle accounts, one who owed 10,000 talents was brought before him. 25 Since he had no way to pay it back, his master commanded that he, his wife, his children, and everything he had be sold to pay the debt. 26 "At this, the slave fell down on his face before him and said, 'Be patient with me, and I will pay you everything!' 27 Then the master of that slave had compassion, released him, and forgave him the loan. 28 "But that slave went out and found one of his fellow slaves who owed him 100 denarii. He grabbed him, started choking him, and said, 'Pay what you owe!' 29 "At this, his fellow slave fell down and began begging him, 'Be patient with me, and I will pay you back.' 30 But he wasn't willing. On the contrary, he went and threw him into prison until he could pay what was owed. 31 When the other slaves saw what had taken place, they were deeply distressed and went and reported to their master everything that had happened. 32 "Then, after he had summoned him, his master said to him, 'You wicked slave! I forgave you all that debt because you begged me. 33 Shouldn't you also have had mercy on your fellow slave, as I had mercy on you?' 34 And his master got angry and handed him over to the jailers until he could pay everything that was owed. 35 So My heavenly Father will also do to you if each of you does not forgive his brother from his heart."

[Nang]

You were under God's wrath period. Christ's work on the cross was of no saving benefit to you until you believed.

Sorry to be a butt in, but while reading this I discerned a detail has been overlooked. . .

The Bible does not teach that the Elect sons of God were subjects of God's wrath (ever), but merely states they:

"were by nature children of wrath, just as the others." Ephesians 2:3

This is explained by Scripture as follows:

"Inasmuch as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy Him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage." Hebrews 2:14&15

God's wrath is reserved for Satan, his minions, and all wicked seed he has issued and held throughout the ages in spiritual bondage.

The sons of God share in the sinful nature of flesh and blood as long as they are in this earthly existence; there is a "law of sin" abiding in their members (Romans 7:23). But "there is no condemnation (wrath) for those who are in Christ Jesus . . .(Romans 8:1)

I apologize. Carry on. I am enjoying reading this thread.

Nang

[Thomas2003]

Tom, I understand the Chalcedon creed. But I'am am not getting your point. I certainly believe that all men (Old and New Testament) are saved by grace, through faith (or maybe faith and works like Augustine taught, but never by works alone). But that does not change my point. You were under God's wrath until you believed. Even though Christ atoned for you long ago, it was not applied to you until you believed.

I believe it was applied in eternity, the atonement is between God and Christ. All men are under law on earth and thus under the wrath of God, including Jesus Christ when He came made of a woman, under the law.

My ethical standing changed upon regeneration, if that is what you mean. But I don't see the problem you are posing. God takes from juridically dead humanity and creates redeemed humanity with eternal life.

[seer]

Sorry to be a butt in, but while reading this I discerned a detail has been overlooked. . .

The Bible does not teach that the Elect sons of God were subjects of God's wrath (ever), but merely states they:

"were by nature children of wrath, just as the others." Ephesians 2:3

This is explained by Scripture as follows:

"Inasmuch as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy Him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage." Hebrews 2:14&15

God's wrath is reserved for Satan, his minions, and all wicked seed he has issued and held throughout the ages in spiritual bondage.

The sons of God share in the sinful nature of flesh and blood as long as they are in this earthly existence; there is a "law of sin" abiding in their members (Romans 7:23). But "there is no condemnation (wrath) for those who are in Christ Jesus . . .(Romans 8:1)

I apologize. Carry on. I am enjoying reading this thread.

Nang

Scripture say that we were by nature children of wrath. But you say no. Who am I to believe? And you are correct, once we believe God's wrath is removed - but not until...

[Kevin Wayne]

Sorry to be a butt in, but while reading this I discerned a detail has been overlooked. . .

The Bible does not teach that the Elect sons of God were subjects of God's wrath (ever), but merely states they:

"were by nature children of wrath, just as the others." Ephesians 2:3

The Holman Bible states the verse as folows:


Eph 2:3 We too all previously lived among them in our fleshly desires, carrying out the inclinations of our flesh and thoughts, and by nature we were children under wrath, as the others were also.



New Living Translation:


"All of us used to live that way, following the passions and desires of our evil nature. We were born with an evil nature, and we were under God's anger just like everyone else."


NIV:

3All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature[a] and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath.



KJV:


"By nature the children of wrath."




New Life Version:


3At one time all of us lived to please our old selves. We gave in to what our bodies and minds wanted. We were sinful from birth like all other people and would suffer from the anger of God.


Wordlwide English NT:


3At one time we too all lived like them. We lived to please ourselves. We did what our bodies and our minds wanted us to do. We were people with whom God was angry, just like other people.






Now I suggest that the difference between what I cited and your particular translation isn't so much who's doing better Greek, but the fact that you want to read into it something that isn't there.

[seer]

I believe it was applied in eternity, the atonement is between God and Christ. All men are under law on earth and thus under the wrath of God, including Jesus Christ when He came made of a woman, under the law.

My ethical standing changed upon regeneration, if that is what you mean. But I don't see the problem you are posing. God takes from juridically dead humanity and creates redeemed humanity with eternal life.

Are you saying that when Christ was growing up He was under God's wrath? But my point (again) Tom, is that Christ's work was not applied to you until you believed. Before that it had no saving effect. And you were under God's wrath even though Christ already payed for your sins.