Limited Atonement

[exodus16_36]

Since chappie doesn't want me interfering with his thread, I'll continue the calvinist ball rolling over here.

Many 'prevenient grace'-ers claim that 1 John 2:2 states that Christ propitiated for the sin of the entire populace of humanity. I claim that this cannot be true based on a preponderance of biblical evidence to the contrary. The phrase "the whole world" must be interpreted differently, lest we wish to affirm universalism.

From a previous post:

You will be hard pressed to exegetically separate propitiation from redeption. If you believe that Christ was the propitiation for the entire world, then, by necessity, you must believe that all will be redeemed.

Several passages make it clear that Christ came to save, not to merely provide opportunity for salvation. Your view waters down the efficacy of Christ's sacrifice. His blood doesn't save anyone, it merely makes the way possible.

2 Corinthians 5:21
For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. - all for whom Christ died become the righteousness of God in Him.

Galatians 1:3,5
Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us from this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen. - all for whom Christ died are deliverd from this present evil age

Titus 2:14
Who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works. - all for whom Christ died are purified, are His special people, and will be zealous for good works.

1 Peter 3:18
For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit. - all for whom Christ died are brought to God, put to death in the flesh, and made alive in the Spirit.

Ephesians 5:25,27
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for it, that He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that He might present it to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that it should be holy and without blemish. - all for whom Christ died are the church, whom God loves, will sanctify, glorify, and present to the father without blemish.

John 10: 14,18, 25-30
I am the good shepherd; and I know My sheep, and am known by My own. As the Father knows Me, even so I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep. And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd. Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father.

Jesus answered them, 'I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father's name, they bear witness of Me. But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father's hand. I and My Father are one. - all for whom Christ died are His sheep, who hear His voice, who know God and follow him. He gives them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand.

Romans 8:32-33
He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things? Who shall bring a charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. - all for whom Christ died are God's elect, who are justified by Him.

Hebrews 9:15
And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. - all for whom Christ died are the called, redeemed of the transgressions of the first covenant, and will receive eternal inheritance.

It is clear that everyone for whom Christ died is surely heaven-bound. You must either affirm universalism, or limit the scope of the atonement of Christ to the elect.

[seer]

Since chappie doesn't want me interfering with his thread, I'll continue the calvinist ball rolling over here.

Many 'prevenient grace'-ers claim that 1 John 2:2 states that Christ propitiated for the sin of the entire populace of humanity. I claim that this cannot be true based on a preponderance of biblical evidence to the contrary. The phrase "the whole world" must be interpreted differently, lest we wish to affirm universalism.

From a previous post:

You will be hard pressed to exegetically separate propitiation from redeption. If you believe that Christ was the propitiation for the entire world, then, by necessity, you must believe that all will be redeemed.

Several passages make it clear that Christ came to save, not to merely provide opportunity for salvation. Your view waters down the efficacy of Christ's sacrifice. His blood doesn't save anyone, it merely makes the way possible.

2 Corinthians 5:21
For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. - all for whom Christ died become the righteousness of God in Him.

Galatians 1:3,5
Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us from this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen. - all for whom Christ died are deliverd from this present evil age

Titus 2:14
Who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works. - all for whom Christ died are purified, are His special people, and will be zealous for good works.

1 Peter 3:18
For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit. - all for whom Christ died are brought to God, put to death in the flesh, and made alive in the Spirit.

Ephesians 5:25,27
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for it, that He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that He might present it to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that it should be holy and without blemish. - all for whom Christ died are the church, whom God loves, will sanctify, glorify, and present to the father without blemish.

John 10: 14,18, 25-30
I am the good shepherd; and I know My sheep, and am known by My own. As the Father knows Me, even so I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep. And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd. Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father.

Jesus answered them, 'I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father's name, they bear witness of Me. But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father's hand. I and My Father are one. - all for whom Christ died are His sheep, who hear His voice, who know God and follow him. He gives them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand.

Romans 8:32-33
He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things? Who shall bring a charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. - all for whom Christ died are God's elect, who are justified by Him.

Hebrews 9:15
And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. - all for whom Christ died are the called, redeemed of the transgressions of the first covenant, and will receive eternal inheritance.

It is clear that everyone for whom Christ died is surely heaven-bound. You must either affirm universalism, or limit the scope of the atonement of Christ to the elect.

I do believe in the universal view of atonement. But it is not necessry to my Arminian beliefs. It could be just as true that Christ, via foreknowledge, only died for those He knew would freely respond to His grace. Thus only dying for the elect.

[exodus16_36]

I do believe in the universal view of atonement. But it is not necessry to my Arminian beliefs.

If you believe in a universal atonement, then why are you not a universalist? I am posing that the two are inseparable. Why do you believe that they are not?

It could be just as true that Christ, via foreknowledge, only died for those He knew would freely respond to His grace. Thus only dying for the elect.

You just jumped back on the same merry-go-round I've mentioned in recent threads. You have God's foreknowledge contingent upon his creation. God is informed by something outside of himself. This cannot be.

I tried to start a thread on the grounding objection, but I accidentally lost it. I'll muster the strength to do it again soon. It is the calvinist rejoinder to all non-calvinists: molinists, arminians and OVTers.

[seer]

If you believe in a universal atonement, then why are you not a universalist? I am posing that the two are inseparable. Why do you believe that they are not?

Because one only apprioiates atonement by faith. The offer/work could still exist even if we reject it.

You just jumped back on the same merry-go-round I've mentioned in recent threads. You have God's foreknowledge contingent upon his creation. God is informed by something outside of himself. This cannot be.

Of course it can be true.

[Xavier]

[...] God is informed by something outside of himself. This cannot be. [...]

It's not a violation of aseity by any stretch of the imagination. Middle Knowledge (and thus, Free Knowledge) are both post-volitional. There is a choice made by God in regards to the order of creation (ie: having free creatures).

I tried to start a thread on the grounding objection, but I accidentally lost it. I'll muster the strength to do it again soon. It is the calvinist rejoinder to all non-calvinists: molinists, arminians and OVTers.

The Arminians have tried to same route when it comes to disproving Molinistic accounts of knowledge. To this day, I've not seen a form of the grounding objection that doesn't have a controversial premise (normally an assumption about HOW things are true)

In general response, I've also got a mountain of proof texts that say that Christ died for the "whole world". The systematic answer is a compromise and both consistant Calvinists and Arminians define atonement the same way because of it: sufficent for all, effective for the elect. Christ died for all AND Christ died for the elect. Choosing a side puts you in a hermanuetical spot.

Yours,
Xavier

[smaller]

Since chappie doesn't want me interfering with his thread, I'll continue the calvinist ball rolling over here.

Many 'prevenient grace'-ers claim that 1 John 2:2 states that Christ propitiated for the sin of the entire populace of humanity. I claim that this cannot be true based on a preponderance of biblical evidence to the contrary. The phrase "the whole world" must be interpreted differently, lest we wish to affirm universalism.

From a previous post:

You will be hard pressed to exegetically separate propitiation from redeption. If you believe that Christ was the propitiation for the entire world, then, by necessity, you must believe that all will be redeemed.

Several passages make it clear that Christ came to save, not to merely provide opportunity for salvation. Your view waters down the efficacy of Christ's sacrifice. His blood doesn't save anyone, it merely makes the way possible.

Colossians 1:
20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.
21 And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled
22 In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight

Romans 5:10
For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

Calvinism denies both of these presentations outright.

2 Corinthians 5:21
For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. - all for whom Christ died become the righteousness of God in Him.

Galatians 1:3,5
Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us from this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen. - all for whom Christ died are deliverd from this present evil age

Titus 2:14
Who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works. - all for whom Christ died are purified, are His special people, and will be zealous for good works.

1 Peter 3:18
For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit. - all for whom Christ died are brought to God, put to death in the flesh, and made alive in the Spirit.

Ephesians 5:25,27
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for it, that He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that He might present it to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that it should be holy and without blemish. - all for whom Christ died are the church, whom God loves, will sanctify, glorify, and present to the father without blemish.

John 10: 14,18, 25-30
I am the good shepherd; and I know My sheep, and am known by My own. As the Father knows Me, even so I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep. And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd. Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father.

Jesus answered them, 'I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father's name, they bear witness of Me. But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father's hand. I and My Father are one. - all for whom Christ died are His sheep, who hear His voice, who know God and follow him. He gives them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand.

Romans 8:32-33
He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things? Who shall bring a charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. - all for whom Christ died are God's elect, who are justified by Him.

Hebrews 9:15
And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. - all for whom Christ died are the called, redeemed of the transgressions of the first covenant, and will receive eternal inheritance.

It is clear that everyone for whom Christ died is surely heaven-bound. You must either affirm universalism, or limit the scope of the atonement of Christ to the elect.

Calvinism leaves no other conclusion than that God is going to burn His Own offspring alive in fire forever as all mankind are Gods offspring (Acts 17:23-31) Arminianism does exactly the same thing.

Do you believe this? A Calvinist or two here have already conceived this position, that God will burn His Own alive forever in tortures fire. I cannot find any scripture that states that position. Not a one. Not one named person given as an example of what is so vaunted to other "unsaved" people and not one single named person even threatened with such a fate as eternal torture in fire. Not a one.

And you have already conceded universalism at least as a possibility pertaining to ethnic Israel. A couple of other Calvinists here hold that possibility open as well, and they should hold out that possibility at least as it pertains to Gods Rights under His Divine Sovereignty which Calvinists seem to want to uphold.

I also have not had a single believer here say that one must adhere to the eternal torment of people in fire to be a Christian. Not even the website owners (to their credit.)

enjoy!

smaller

[mickiel]

Since chappie doesn't want me interfering with his thread, I'll continue the calvinist ball rolling over here.

Many 'prevenient grace'-ers claim that 1 John 2:2 states that Christ propitiated for the sin of the entire populace of humanity. I claim that this cannot be true based on a preponderance of biblical evidence to the contrary. The phrase "the whole world" must be interpreted differently, lest we wish to affirm universalism.

.

I believe just what the verse states , that Jesus covers not just the sins of the righteous, but the unrighteous as well, or more plainly since many have trouble with that terminology- Jesus died for everyone. Since all have sinned, one could say that Jesus died for sinners, a reality some righteous people have problems with. And that is a sore reality, that many righteous people do not want Christ to die for the unrighteous. They have a very strong desire that sinners be condemned.

I think that is the contridiction of the century, righteous people willing that sinners are not qualified to have complette salvation. Their will for that is so strong, they cannot see the total forgiveness that is in Gods humoungous grace and generous saving plan. Such desires pervert the view needed to see the amount of universalism that is in the word of God.

I am not a universalist, I am nothing, but I see the great atonement that lives in scripture. Yet I see that many do not see it, and that is perplexing. A person can actually pick up the word of God, and see eternal damnation, set it down and walk away satisfied. Not even seeing that Jesus is the author and finisher of our living careers, that we all are in his hands. All of us are sinners, each failed in the thought that we need to attain perfection to attain eternal life. We all have failed to do what Christ did, live in human perfection. From this mindset of failure, people have created differing understandings of the bible. Usually their understandings mutally benefits themselves, that is the birth of limited atonement, a selfish view of the bible. Through self presevation, the belief system has pushed out grace.

Grace is forgiving to anyone, which is really how God is. But Gods true characther is hidden because the doctrines born from the frustration and fears of men have clouded the world from the generousity of Jesus, who reflects totally his Father God. This is why men debate atonement, and 1John 2:2, because they really do not understand its simplicity, its plain and simple truth. Human nature on its own, is not able to comprehend unlimited atonement, because human nature is limited itself.

[Trout]

Calvinism leaves no other conclusion than that God is going to burn His Own offspring alive in fire forever as all mankind are Gods offspring (Acts 17:23-31) Arminianism does exactly the same thing.

Jhn 1:12

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:

smaller, you are wrong when you posit the universal fatherhood of God.

[themuzicman]

Many 'prevenient grace'-ers claim that 1 John 2:2 states that Christ propitiated for the sin of the entire populace of humanity. I claim that this cannot be true based on a preponderance of biblical evidence to the contrary. The phrase "the whole world" must be interpreted differently, lest we wish to affirm universalism.

I don't know how you can translate "whole world" differently. Just like you can't translate "all men" in Romans 5:18 differently.

From a previous post:

You will be hard pressed to exegetically separate propitiation from redeption. If you believe that Christ was the propitiation for the entire world, then, by necessity, you must believe that all will be redeemed.

Not at all. Jesus frequently told us of the condition for being redeemed.

Several passages make it clear that Christ came to save, not to merely provide opportunity for salvation. Your view waters down the efficacy of Christ's sacrifice. His blood doesn't save anyone, it merely makes the way possible.

I don't know. For the Arminian, Christ's death was for FAR MORE people than Calvinism, for which Christ was only able to die for a minority of men.

2 Corinthians 5:21
For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. - all for whom Christ died become the righteousness of God in Him.

You omitted the word "might" in your exegesis. "Might" speaks of possible. No impact on unlimited atonement.

Galatians 1:3,5
Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us from this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen. - all for whom Christ died are deliverd from this present evil age

Sure, but that doesnt' mean that His death was only for them. You're arguing from silence.

Titus 2:14
Who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works. - all for whom Christ died are purified, are His special people, and will be zealous for good works.

Again, Paul is referring to those who are saved. Another argument from silence.

1 Peter 3:18
For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit. - all for whom Christ died are brought to God, put to death in the flesh, and made alive in the Spirit.

Again, "might" referrs to possible, not definate.

Ephesians 5:25,27
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for it, that He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that He might present it to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that it should be holy and without blemish. - all for whom Christ died are the church, whom God loves, will sanctify, glorify, and present to the father without blemish.

I don't see "all" in here anywhere. References to "church" don't necessarily refer to a known list of elect.

John 10: 14,18, 25-30
I am the good shepherd; and I know My sheep, and am known by My own. As the Father knows Me, even so I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep. And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd. Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father.

Jesus answered them, 'I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father's name, they bear witness of Me. But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father's hand. I and My Father are one. - all for whom Christ died are His sheep, who hear His voice, who know God and follow him. He gives them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand.

Again, you're assuming that "my sheep" is a fixed list, which isn't based in scripture. Jesus is just talking about those who believe in Him.

Romans 8:32-33
He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things? Who shall bring a charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. - all for whom Christ died are God's elect, who are justified by Him.

Sorry, but you're arguing from silence, here.

Hebrews 9:15
And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. - all for whom Christ died are the called, redeemed of the transgressions of the first covenant, and will receive eternal inheritance.

Huh? This is about the covenant. You're eisegeting badly.

It is clear that everyone for whom Christ died is surely heaven-bound. You must either affirm universalism, or limit the scope of the atonement of Christ to the elect.

Sorry, but all you've done is provided me with several months of proof texts to expose as badly exegeted.

Michael

[Kuiper]

I don't know how you can translate "whole world" differently. Just like you can't translate "all men" in Romans 5:18 differently.

You don't have to translate it differently, you have to understand it correctly. Do you feel the need to change "whole world" in John 12:19: "So the Pharisees said to one another, "See, this is getting us nowhere. Look how the whole world has gone after him!"

Did literally the "whole world" go after Jesus in Jerusalem?

I don't know. For the Arminian, Christ's death was for FAR MORE people than Calvinism, for which Christ was only able to die for a minority of men.

1) We don't know if it is a minority or not, that's conjecture.
2) For the Arminian, Christ's death was far less effective for FAR MORE people than Calvinism. Arminianism has Christ's blood spilled for people who will receive no benefit for it - Calvinism has Christ's blood effectively saving 100% of the people it was intended to atone for.

You omitted the word "might" in your exegesis. "Might" speaks of possible. No impact on unlimited atonement.

No one omitted anything. The Biblical "might" is the subjunctive, which most certainly does not "speak of possible." You're mistaken, and it most surely has a significant impact on unlimited atonement.

Sure, but that doesnt' mean that His death was only for them. You're arguing from silence.

Read Leviticus 4-5. Biblical atonement is made for specific people and always, always results in forgiveness.

Again, "might" referrs to possible, not definate.

Again, the subjunctive "might" does NOT refer to "possible," as in, maybe. It is purpose/result.

I don't see "all" in here anywhere. References to "church" don't necessarily refer to a known list of elect.

Riiiiiiiigggghhhhhhttttt... "church" = ekklesia --> "called-out ones" --> the elect!

Again, you're assuming that "my sheep" is a fixed list, which isn't based in scripture. Jesus is just talking about those who believe in Him.

"My sheep" is spoken of as a definite group - this is based in Scripture. To suggest that a shepherd can tend some ambiguous, amorphous group of contingent/possible sheep is ridiculous.

Huh? This is about the covenant. You're eisegeting badly.

As we've seen - you're the eisegete.

Sorry, but all you've done is provided me with several months of proof texts to expose as badly exegeted.

Michael

Whatever. Go study the Biblical uses of "might," the principles of shepherding, and the etymology of "church."

[Xavier]

You don't have to translate it differently, you have to understand it correctly. Do you feel the need to change "whole world" in John 12:19: "So the Pharisees said to one another, "See, this is getting us nowhere. Look how the whole world has gone after him!"

Did literally the "whole world" go after Jesus in Jerusalem?

You have to PROVE exageration based on context... Good luck using the verse in question...

1) We don't know if it is a minority or not, that's conjecture.

True, but it ain't exactly hard to take a look around. How Billion in China alone?

2) For the Arminian, Christ's death was far less effective for FAR MORE people than Calvinism.

Arminians aren't universalists, we don't hold that the atonement is effective for all sin, just that it is sufficent for all sin. Quite frankly, if you can't say the same, then you've got some serious Christological problems.

Arminianism has Christ's blood spilled for people who will receive no benefit for it - Calvinism has Christ's blood effectively saving 100% of the people it was intended to atone for.

No matter how much they twist the scriptures in order to prove it... Less Rhetoric, More Exegesis.

No one omitted anything. The Biblical "might" is the subjunctive, which most certainly does not "speak of possible." You're mistaken, and it most surely has a significant impact on unlimited atonement.

Assertion.

Read Leviticus 4-5. Biblical atonement is made for specific people and always, always results in forgiveness.

Provide the exegesis. We're lazy and wholely unimpressed.

Again, the subjunctive "might" does NOT refer to "possible," as in, maybe. It is purpose/result.

Assertion.

Riiiiiiiigggghhhhhhttttt... "church" = ekklesia --> "called-out ones" --> the elect!

Begs the question.

"My sheep" is spoken of as a definite group - this is based in Scripture. To suggest that a shepherd can tend some ambiguous, amorphous group of contingent/possible sheep is ridiculous.

As does this.

As we've seen - you're the eisegete.

At least he bothered an attempt at exegesis.

Whatever. Go study the Biblical uses of "might," the principles of shepherding, and the etymology of "church."

Whatever. Go somewhere that cares more about Rhetoric than what the Bible says on the matter.

Yours,
Xavier

[themuzicman]

You don't have to translate it differently, you have to understand it correctly. Do you feel the need to change "whole world" in John 12:19: "So the Pharisees said to one another, "See, this is getting us nowhere. Look how the whole world has gone after him!"

Did literally the "whole world" go after Jesus in Jerusalem?

Apparantly you don't know what "hyperbole" is.

1) We don't know if it is a minority or not, that's conjecture.

Oh, please. The world has NEVER had a majority of Christians.

2) For the Arminian, Christ's death was far less effective for FAR MORE people than Calvinism. Arminianism has Christ's blood spilled for people who will receive no benefit for it - Calvinism has Christ's blood effectively saving 100% of the people it was intended to atone for.

And that's the nature of God's love: While we are yet sinners, He died for us. Yeah, and by choice, God condemns most of mankind to eternal torment by not shedding blood for them.

No one omitted anything. The Biblical "might" is the subjunctive, which most certainly does not "speak of possible." You're mistaken, and it most surely has a significant impact on unlimited atonement.

Excuse me, but the subjuctive is most certainly about the possible. It certainly doesn't speak with certainty. That's why the translators chose the word "might" (that, and "might" reflects the mood of the subjuctive.)

Read Leviticus 4-5. Biblical atonement is made for specific people and always, always results in forgiveness.

Levitius is from the Old Covenant. We're in the New Covenant. New Covenant, New atonement, New Law. Leviticus doesn't apply.

Again, the subjunctive "might" does NOT refer to "possible," as in, maybe. It is purpose/result.

Sorry, but you must not know Greek. The subjuctive (unless it is accompanied with a negative particle) is generally translated with "might" precisely because there is some possibility.

Riiiiiiiigggghhhhhhttttt... "church" = ekklesia --> "called-out ones" --> the elect!

[greek]ekklhsia[/greek] is NOT the called out ones. It is NOT translated that way, nor is that what it means. The etymology of the word comes from the name of the town crier, whose main qualifications were a loud voice and the ability to embellish and still be believed.

It simply means "gathering". The church adopted it to refer to a church, but it had no connotation of "called out ones."

Furthermore, the "elect" does not need to be a fixed, predetermined list of people.

"My sheep" is spoken of as a definite group - this is based in Scripture. To suggest that a shepherd can tend some ambiguous, amorphous group of contingent/possible sheep is ridiculous.

No, it's not based in scripture. Let's say that I have 50 sheep today. Those are my sheep. Tomorrow, I buy 5 more sheep. Now those 55 sheep are "my sheep." Jesus is simply referring to those who presently believe in him as His sheep.

As we've seen - you're the eisegete.

Oh? You;re the one who is clueless about what the subjuctive mood is.

Whatever. Go study the Biblical uses of "might," the principles of shepherding, and the etymology of "church."

Why do you think I've studied Greek at a master's level? Once you strip away the Calvinist assumptions, these verse fall back into their context, but away from supporting Calvinistm.

Michael

[Kuiper]

Apparantly you don't know what "hyperbole" is.

Obviously I do, and that's my point - you simply allow for hyperbole in John 12:19 but not in 1 John 2:2. For what reason? Your personal preference. In order to properly understand the workings of Biblical atonement (which is the "means by which sins are forgiven", NOT the "means by which sins are possibly forgiven"), why must understand John's hyperbole in 1 John 2:2 just like we understand his usage of it in John 12:19.

Oh, please. The world has NEVER had a majority of Christians.

I agree, but we don't know who God has elected to save in the future, and He could very well tip the scales if He pleases.

And that's the nature of God's love: While we are yet sinners, He died for us.

Yes, Christ died FOR (υπερ) us. You've studied Greek at a master's level - do you know what the significance of the preposition υπερ is?

Yeah, and by choice, God condemns most of mankind to eternal torment by not shedding blood for them.

Not shedding blood for them? That's limited atonement my friend.

Excuse me, but the subjuctive is most certainly about the possible. It certainly doesn't speak with certainty.

Excuse you, but the OPTATIVE is most certainly about the possible. The subjunctive doesn't speak with the certainty of the indicative, but to try to resolve it down to a "possibility" is ludicrous. Do you think the result of John 3:16 is only "possible?" - "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life."

The underlined portions are, guess what.... subjunctive! And sure, the first retains the negative particle, but do you truly believe that whoever believes in Christ will maybe/maybe not have eternal life?

Levitius is from the Old Covenant. We're in the New Covenant. New Covenant, New atonement, New Law. Leviticus doesn't apply.

This made me spit out my coffee. What in the world do you think Leviticus is pointing to? Why do you think the writer of Hebrews relied so heavily on OT priestly and sacrificial imagery to describe the work of Christ? Christ was the Passover Lamb... the great High Priest... a sin offering... these are ALL Old Testament characteristics of atonement. Leviticus is in the Bible - of course it applies!

Sorry, but you must not know Greek. The subjuctive (unless it is accompanied with a negative particle) is generally translated with "might" precisely because there is some possibility.

Sorry, but I wouldn't say silly things like that on a message board. The subjunctive carries an aspectual potentiality, but that is certainly not the same as the optative possibility. Dan Wallace in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics even says, "It is not correct to call this [subjunctive] the mood of uncertainty."

[greek]ekklhsia[/greek] is NOT the called out ones. It is NOT translated that way, nor is that what it means. The etymology of the word comes from the name of the town crier, whose main qualifications were a loud voice and the ability to embellish and still be believed.

Thayer's Greek Lexicon, page 195:
[greek]ekklhsia[/greek] - (from [greek]ekklhtos[/greek] called out or forth, and this from [greek]ekkalew[/greek]; prop. a gathering of citizens CALLED OUT from their homes into some public place.

You're going on and on about my lack of Greek knowledge, and you can't put it together that [greek]ekklhsia[/greek] is a compound of the preposition [greek]ek[/greek] and the verb [greek]kalew[/greek] - to "call out"?

It simply means "gathering". The church adopted it to refer to a church, but it had no connotation of "called out ones."

I hope by now you recant this silly statement. The very compound word it is derived from means "I am calling out"

Furthermore, the "elect" does not need to be a fixed, predetermined list of people.

This is a whole different discussion. Of course, this is nice innovation, but Biblical atonement is made for specific people - not an amorphous entity.

No, it's not based in scripture. Let's say that I have 50 sheep today. Those are my sheep. Tomorrow, I buy 5 more sheep. Now those 55 sheep are "my sheep." Jesus is simply referring to those who presently believe in him as His sheep.

Do you believe that the Creator of the universe has such obtuse knowledge? That He didn't know the very names of every person for whom He died for?

Oh? You;re the one who is clueless about what the subjuctive mood is.

Obviously not, if you can't distinguish between subjunctive and optative nor have the ability to see the roots of [greek]ekklhsia[/greek].

Why do you think I've studied Greek at a master's level? Once you strip away the Calvinist assumptions, these verse fall back into their context, but away from supporting Calvinistm.

Why do you think I teach Greek at a master's level? Keep studying at that master's level - we're all impressed. Yeah, those silly Calvinist assumptions like the unity of God's Word and allowing the Bible to define the scope and mechanics of atonement. Ever consider the etymology of "atonement?" Being made "at-one" with God? Can people who have been atoned for (been made at one with God) subsequently be punished in hell?

[Xavier]

[...] Why do you think I teach Greek at a master's level? [...]

Those poor students... They'll leave your class and have no idea that you are supposed to determine hyperbole based on CONTEXT rather than a need to fit into your systematic theology. Granted, you may not teach hermeneutics, but that's not much of an excuse.

I also enjoyed the part where you missed Muz's sarcasm. Doesn't say much about your exegetical skills in English either.

[themuzicman]

Obviously I do, and that's my point - you simply allow for hyperbole in John 12:19 but not in 1 John 2:2. For what reason? Your personal preference. In order to properly understand the workings of Biblical atonement (which is the "means by which sins are forgiven", NOT the "means by which sins are possibly forgiven"), why must understand John's hyperbole in 1 John 2:2 just like we understand his usage of it in John 12:19.

It's called context, kuiper. The context of the Pharisees statement makes it obvious that they're expressing their feelings. The context of 1 John has no suggestion that he is using hyperbole. He is speaking factually, and there certainly isn't anything to suggest that it's really only the elect, which is the alternative you want to read.

I agree, but we don't know who God has elected to save in the future, and He could very well tip the scales if He pleases.

We don't know that God has elected to save anyone in the future! The bible never says that God picks who gets saved!

Yes, Christ died FOR (υπερ) us. You've studied Greek at a master's level - do you know what the significance of the preposition υπερ is?

In this case, probably "for the sake of". Again, it's an argument from silence, because the verse never excludes Christ dying for those who aren't going to receive salvation.

Not shedding blood for them? That's limited atonement my friend.

That's also unscriptural.

Excuse you, but the OPTATIVE is most certainly about the possible. The subjunctive doesn't speak with the certainty of the indicative, but to try to resolve it down to a "possibility" is ludicrous. Do you think the result of John 3:16 is only "possible?" - "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life."

Yes, the optative has a stronger uncertainty associated with it. That's true. the subjuctive, however, still has the possible with an eye towards being probable, which makes the translation of "might" accurate, and the insertion of possibility correct. QED. Thanks for conceeding the point.

The underlined portions are, guess what.... subjunctive! And sure, the first retains the negative particle, but do you truly believe that whoever believes in Christ will maybe/maybe not have eternal life?

John 3:16, in speaking of "the world" conveys the subjuctive nature of "whosoever believes in him." The "whosoever" is indefinate, and Jesus' point is that the condition of salvation is that you must believe.

This made me spit out my coffee. What in the world do you think Leviticus is pointing to?

Participation in the OLD COVENANT>

Why do you think the writer of Hebrews relied so heavily on OT priestly and sacrificial imagery to describe the work of Christ? Christ was the Passover Lamb... the great High Priest... a sin offering... these are ALL Old Testament characteristics of atonement. Leviticus is in the Bible - of course it applies!

Why does Hebrews also say that when there is a New High Priest, there is a new covenant and a new law? Why does Hebrews say that the Old Covenant is passing away? Why does Hebrews say that Christ's sacrifice was NOT like the animal sacriices?

Yes, Leviticus is important because it is the Covenant that produced the Messiah, but it is NOT a source for soteriology.

Sorry, but I wouldn't say silly things like that on a message board. The subjunctive carries an aspectual potentiality, but that is certainly not the same as the optative possibility. Dan Wallace in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics even says, "It is not correct to call this [subjunctive] the mood of uncertainty."

But it is correct to say that it is the mood of possibility. That's why we translated it with "might." Yes, it is more certain than the optative.

Thayer's Greek Lexicon, page 195:
[greek]ekklhsia[/greek] - (from [greek]ekklhtos[/greek] called out or forth, and this from [greek]ekkalew[/greek]; prop. a gathering of citizens CALLED OUT from their homes into some public place.

That's the VERB. [greek]ekklhsia[/greek] is a NOUN.

You're going on and on about my lack of Greek knowledge, and you can't put it together that [greek]ekklhsia[/greek] is a compound of the preposition [greek]ek[/greek] and the verb [greek]kalew[/greek] - to "call out"?

Etymology doesn't give us the definition of the word.

Yes, [greek]ekklhsia[/greek] can refer to an group that has been called to a public place, but that has nothing to do with [greek]ekklhsia[/greek] referring to a church. A church is nothing more than an assembly of believers.

Look at James 5:7. There is the word [greek]exdecatai[/greek]. The etymology is [greek]ex[/greek] (out from) and [greek]dexomai[/greek] to take or to receive. So, by your method, this should mean "to take from" or "to receive from", right?

Bzzzzzzzzzzzt. Wrong! The word is trasnlated "expect" or "wait for".

You see, the problem with etymology is that words change meaning over time. If you were put in the time machine in the 1940s and you just emerged and starting using the word "gay", do you think you'd be in trouble?

You bet you would. You think "gay" means happy, because that's what it meant in 1940. Not anymore.

Most words are like that. They evolve over time. [greek]ekklhsia[/greek] simply means a group that has gathered.

I hope by now you recant this silly statement. The very compound word it is derived from means "I am calling out"

I hope you take a lesson in etymology and lexicography from all this, because you're out in left field, near the warning track.

This is a whole different discussion. Of course, this is nice innovation, but Biblical atonement is made for specific people - not an amorphous entity.

Calvinism is such a nice systematic theology. Too bad it isn't biblical. See the 1 John reference or Romans 5:18 to refute yourself.

Do you believe that the Creator of the universe has such obtuse knowledge? That He didn't know the very names of every person for whom He died for?

If you remove the poisoning of the well and actually read the bible for what it says, then the answer is "God does not have a specifically selected list of elect for whom Christ died or that will receive salvation." The necessity for a sufficiently and truly free will to remove God from responsibility for sin requires an open future and a corporate elect.

Obviously not, if you can't distinguish between subjunctive and optative nor have the ability to see the roots of [greek]ekklhsia[/greek].

Oh, yeah, Mr. Scholar. You're real smart. Riiiiiiiiiiiight.

Why do you think I teach Greek at a master's level?

You're kidding, right? You don't even understand Wallace. How can you teach it?

Keep studying at that master's level - we're all impressed. Yeah, those silly Calvinist assumptions like the unity of God's Word and allowing the Bible to define the scope and mechanics of atonement. Ever consider the etymology of "atonement?" Being made "at-one" with God? Can people who have been atoned for (been made at one with God) subsequently be punished in hell?

Now I KNOW you're not a Greek teacher at a master's level. No scholar would ever make that stupid "at-one-ment" argument. Once you find the Greek word that is translated "atonement", you know that its etymology has absolutely nothing to do with being at one with God.

Anyone who knows Greek would rolls their eyes at such a suggestion.

Michael