Help on Limited Atonement

[Plaid Panther]

There is no clairification for the christian mind with simple truth. What you are asking for is more confusion so you do not have to believe it. You are not asking for the verse to be recomciled, you are asking for assistance in changing its meaning, because it does not square with your religous understanding and doctrine. Notice all the help you got. This is what is occuring in christianity, they are assisting each other in digging themselves futher and futher away from the truth. Amazingly all the while believeing that they represent truth.

Peace, Mickiel.

On the contrary, I am asking for clarification. I do not understand how this verse can allow limited atonement to stand. If you think for a moment that I am trying to "[dig myself] further and further away from the truth" then you are gravely mistaken. I am asking for others to help me understand, but so far all I have received are copy and pasted quotes that simply insert their own context into the verse. I find that to be rather inadequate. I'm not here to cause division, but to more fully understand the truth.

In Christ,
Plaid Panther

[Nang]

Nang,
Universalism is the teaching that God will save everyone regardless - not that He desires that everyone to be saved.

Huh?

God saves everyone even though He does not desire to save everyone? That's a new joke. You posted Timothy, questioning why he said God desired to save all men, and now you back away from your OP. What silliness is this?

Not everything that God desires is accomplished.

That is pure blasphemy. (And the weakness of Arminianism.)

Example: God desired that Isreal would follow Him, but the OT is mostly a record of how they continued to rebel.

God commanded Israel to follow Him, but they did not. Commanded and desire are not the same. To command is to issue a "should." The fact that Israel "should" have followed God, does not mean that God intended or desired Israel to act other than they did.

Another example: Today, I seriously doubt that God desires that we would continue to sin (Matt 5:8), yet we continue to do so.

So we overrule God's desires, wants, and will? I don't think so.

Simply because God desires something, does not mean that it will be accomplished. So I fail to see how the rest of your argument stands.

That's the point. I describe a Sovereign God who's will be done. You describe a God who fails to see His will accomplished. Your "god" is no God.

Please bear in mind, I do not deny predestination. What I am looking for here is help reconciling this to limited atonement.

Reconciling what? There is NO compromise with this verse. God either gets what He wants, or He does not.

Universalists say God does so, by overruling all sins of all men. You deny this view.

Calvinists say God does so, by overruling the sins of all kinds of (elect) men. You deny this also.

So your attempt to reconcile the unreconcilable, is just another attempt to deny God's will be sovereign, but man's will is sovereign.

Believe it or not, I would say that I lean towards Calvinism but have trouble with this verse accepting the L in TULIP.

In Christ,
Plaid Panther

Yes, studying the doctrine of Limited Atonement is crucial to understanding Covenant God and appreciating His saving grace.

Once it is grasped that Jesus Christ successfully represented a particular people, and saved them to the uttermost, without compromise or failure of the will and desires of His Father, gives believers great assurance and security and brings great glory to God.

I answer you, not to argue, but hopefully to discuss and to encourage you to continue to ask questions in this regard. They are VERY IMPORTANT questions, and they should not be sidetracked in muddy and confusing waters.

Nang

[mickiel]

On the contrary, I am asking for clarification. I do not understand how this verse can allow limited atonement to stand. If you think for a moment that I am trying to "[dig myself] further and further away from the truth" then you are gravely mistaken. I am asking for others to help me understand, but so far all I have received are copy and pasted quotes that simply insert their own context into the verse. I find that to be rather inadequate. I'm not here to cause division, but to more fully understand the truth.

In Christ,
Plaid Panther

If you are here to understand truth, you have come to the wrong place. The verse means simply what it states. Gods will is that all men be saved. Whatever God wills is going to happen, weather people believe it or not. The christians here are teaching that God will not get what he wills and not all people will be saved, in direct violation of Gods will. And you come here for truth. You need your directions examined.

Peace, Mickiel.

[Nang]

If you are here to understand truth, you have come to the wrong place.

There is no truth at this site?

You are wrong.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is being proclaimed on this site.

The verse means simply what it states. Gods will is that all men be saved. Whatever God wills is going to happen, weather people believe it or not.

So, your conclusion is that all men will be universally saved, whether they believe or exhibit faith, or not?

The christians here are teaching that God will not get what he wills

Not this Christian! I am teaching that God gets exactly and completely what He desires.

It is only the "free willers" who claim God's will is thwarted by the will of men and women.

and not all people will be saved, in direct violation of Gods will.

(Do you realize how inconsistently you post?)

But the Bible clearly teaches not all people are written in the Lamb's Book of Life, and all unbelievers will be cast into Hell.

And you come here for truth. You need your directions examined.

Leave him alone. Let him ask his questions.

They are crucial and not to be discouraged.

Nang

[Zipperhead]

You are quite right. Here the Calvinist must finally deny scripture. Paul says all men with no qualifications. Not all kinds and types. Of course even the non-elect would be a kind and type. But Paul makes it very clear that "all men" includes the non-elect in the very same letter...

Chapter. 4 and vs.10


"For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe."

Believers are a sub set of "all men" which must then comprehend the non-elect...

How is Jesus the SAVIOR of people who are never SAVED?

How is Christ a Savior to people who he doesn't save from hell (people that go to hell) ?

Once again, I invite you to read some Gill on that verse:

1 Timothy 4:10

Who is the Saviour of all men; in a providential way, giving them being and breath, upholding them in their beings, preserving their lives, and indulging them with the blessings and mercies of life; for that he is the Saviour of all men, with a spiritual and everlasting salvation, is not true in fact.

Specially of those that believe; whom though he saves with an eternal salvation; yet not of this, but of a temporal salvation, are the words to be understood: or as there is a general providence, which attends all mankind, there is a special one which relates to the elect of God; these are regarded in Providence, and are particularly saved and preserved before conversion, in order to be called; and after conversion, after they are brought to believe in Christ, they are preserved from many enemies, and are delivered out of many afflictions and temptations; and are the peculiar care and darlings of providence, being to God as the apple of his eye: and there is a great deal of reason to believe this, for if he is the Saviour of all men, then much more of them who are of more worth, value, and esteem with him, than all the world beside; and if they are saved by him with the greater salvation, then much more with the less; and if he the common Saviour of all men, and especially of saints, whom he saves both ways, then there is great reason to trust in him for the fulfilment of the promises of life, temporal and eternal, made to godliness, and godly persons. This epithet of God seems to be taken out of Ps 17:7 where he is called Myowx eyvwm, "the Saviour of them that trust", or believe.

http://www.freegrace.net/gill/

Do you believe that Jesus saves everyone, or just some?

If he only some are saved, then why do you assert that that verse is calling Christ the "Savior" (in a salvation from hell sense, as opposed to a preserving until judgment sense) if most people go to hell?

The interpertation Gill gave is clearly consistent, whereas yours, like all free willer twistings, leads to problems.

[Zipperhead]

Zipperhead,
Gill took that out of context. Nowhere does Paul say "all elect men" nor does he imply it.
Plaid Panther

Try doing an exegesis and proving that it was taken out of context, rather than just ASSERTING that it was.

EXPLAIN why your assertion is correct, and see if you can exegetically counter Gill's exegesis of Romans 5:18 (which by the way, really puts the nail in the coffin of those who assert that "all men" must always refer to every individual of mankind without exception).

[Zipperhead]

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

[Plaid Panther]

Huh?

God saves everyone even though He does not desire to save everyone?

You misunderstand my point. I was trying to draw the distinction between desire and will. Universalism teaches that God will save everyone regardless of their faith, the condition of their heart, etc.

God commanded Israel to follow Him, but they did not. Commanded and desire are not the same. To command is to issue a "should." The fact that Israel "should" have followed God, does not mean that God intended or desired Israel to act other than they did.

So are you implying that God did not desire for the nation of Isreal to follow Him when He commanded it?

So we overrule God's desires, wants, and will? I don't think so.

Desires? Yes:
You and I sin every day.
You assert that everything that happens is in accordance with God's desire.
The natural conclusion that is drawn from your position is that God DESIRES for us to sin.

Yes, studying the doctrine of Limited Atonement is crucial to understanding Covenant God and appreciating His saving grace.

Did the early Church have this doctrine firmly established? If not, how then were they saved?

Once it is grasped that Jesus Christ successfully represented a particular people, and saved them to the uttermost, without compromise or failure of the will and desires of His Father, gives believers great assurance and security and brings great glory to God.

I will respond with Paul's words:

Hebrews 10:11-12

And every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; but He, HAVING OFFERED ONE SACRIFICE FOR SINS FOR ALL TIME, sat down at the right hand of God.

(Also see Heb 7:27 and 1Pet 3:18)

So no, I don't see your point.

In Christ,
Plaid Panther

[seer]

Do you believe that Jesus saves everyone, or just some?

If he only some are saved, then why do you assert that that verse is calling Christ the "Savior" (in a salvation from hell sense, as opposed to a preserving until judgment sense) if most people go to hell?

The interpertation Gill gave is clearly consistent, whereas yours, like all free willer twistings, leads to problems.

First, the word Savior is "soter" in the greek. It is used about 22 times in the N.T. And it is never used in the sense of simple preservation - but in the sense of salvation from sin. So I doubt that Paul invented a meaning here not found in the rest of the N.T.

But that was NOT my point zipper. My point was that "all men" as Paul uses it in this letter includes the non-elect. As 4:10 makes quite clear. As the "all men" of 2:1 would naturally include the non-elect, therefore the verse in question 2:4 would also naturally include the non-elect.

[seer]

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

Please Zipper - try and stop debating by quoting others, make your own arguments. This is quite lazy, and Gill does not carry much weight with many of us. Just more opinions of men...

[Nang]

You misunderstand my point. I was trying to draw the distinction between desire and will.

That was your point?

Could'a fooled me. When did you exactly state that?

Universalism teaches that God will save everyone regardless of their faith, the condition of their heart, etc.

Yeah!

That is what makes Universalism a false gospel. For "without faith, it is impossible to please God." (Heb. 11:6)

Right?

So are you implying that God did not desire for the nation of Isreal to follow Him when He commanded it?

If God had "desired" the nation of Israel to be totally faithful to Him, God would have worked it. Instead, God gave a "two-edged sword" command for Israel, which would either work salvation or judgment.

You assert that everything that happens is in accordance with God's desire.
The natural conclusion that is drawn from your position is that God DESIRES for us to sin.

Yes, I assert everything that happens is in accordance with God's will. All things will bring glory to God. It is God's wisdom and will to demonstrate that things MADE are not good like God.

Creatures cannot achieve, practice, or live righteously under holy and perfect Law.

The evidence is displayed between the two men:

1. The first man made of flesh, incapable of Godly righteousness.
1. The last Man, the Lord from Heaven, personifcation of Godliness and righteousness.

So no, I don't see your point.

In Christ,
Plaid Panther

Keep asking . . .

Nang

[Plaid Panther]

That was your point?
That is what makes Universalism a false gospel. For "without faith, it is impossible to please God." (Heb. 11:6)

You and I are both arguing the same side of the issue here. I was talking about how Gill's argument superficially looked like Universalism. (Look at Reply #7)

If God had "desired" the nation of Israel to be totally faithful to Him, God would have worked it. Instead, God gave a "two-edged sword" command for Israel, which would either work salvation or judgment.

Yes, I assert everything that happens is in accordance with God's will. All things will bring glory to God. It is God's wisdom and will to demonstrate that things MADE are not good like God.

If God is good and all His actions are therefore good and, as you say, He desires that sin occur, then you are arguing that evil is actually good.


Oh, and would you mind responding to Heb 10:11-12?

In Christ,
Plaid Panther

[Plaid Panther]

Try doing an exegesis and proving that it was taken out of context, rather than just ASSERTING that it was.

EXPLAIN why your assertion is correct, and see if you can exegetically counter Gill's exegesis of Romans 5:18 (which by the way, really puts the nail in the coffin of those who assert that "all men" must always refer to every individual of mankind without exception).

Zipperhead,
I would love to respond to you right away. Unfortuneatly I am a busy engineering student and will not be able to do what you ask for in short order (the next few weeks). I had hoped that this thread would be a little less vicious when I simply asked how this was reconciled to limited atonement.

In Christ,
Plaid Panther

[Nang]

If God is good and all His actions are therefore good and, as you say, He desires that sin occur, then you are arguing that evil is actually good.

No, I do not call evil good.

But I do declare God in sovereign control over both.

Oh, and would you mind responding to Heb 10:11-12?

"And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God." Hebrews 10:11-12

This Scripture compares the temporal Levitical priesthood with the eternal priesthood of Jesus Christ, our High Priest.

The animal blood the Levitical priests offered before God in the tabernacle and temple did not take away sin, but simply and temporarily covered (atoned) for the sins of the people for a year's time.

But the blood offered to God by the Son, was a once for all time offering (eternal), which truly worked remission and justification for the sins of those Jesus Christ represented in His body on the cross.

Then, after overcoming death, He resurrected to sit at the right hand of God to represent those same people He justified, before the face of God as worthy of grace and help. (See within the Book of Hebrews, Chapter 10 context, vss 18-22)

The everlasting priesthood of Jesus Christ not only worked everlasting remission of sins for His people, but He continue as their eternal High Priest in the position as Mediator and Intercessor on their behalf forever and ever, sitting at the throne of grace before Father God.


Nang

[Thomas2003]

You took that out of context, did you read the part where he said "all men" should NOT be viewed as meaning "every individual of mankind?"

All men means all men OF THE ELECT, all KINDS (Jew, Gentile, king, poor man) of men, not all men without exception.

Read in context.

This is correct, it is properly understood in the same context as 1 John 2:2, "for the sins of the whole world."

This regards the scope of the Covenant and its global expansion in Christ to all nations. Just as John 3:16 where God says He "loved the world" does not mean every individual, for just a few verses later those that don't believe are condemned already with the wrath of God abiding upon them.