Limited Atonement?

[The Plain Jane]

Why is that important? Because it explains how God's wrath was poured out on that generation of Israel and how God now loved humanity without wrath.

Does God love the unrepentand homosexuals in Romans without wrath? Paul used the word wrath alot! Paul was one confused man, I tell ya.

Today, people use one to nullify the other, while calling themselves wise.

It doesn't nullify the Gospel to say God's wrath abides on the unrepentant. Paul says so.

Romans 3
5 But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unjust who inflicts wrath? (I speak as a man.) 6 Certainly not! For then how will God judge the world?

As the Beatles sang - "Get back to where you once belonged..." (they were talking about something else but the line fits...;-)

My you are old.

[The Plain Jane]

If they believe that then they do not understand what the Bible is actually saying.
Mankind was saved. That is what redemption, reconcile, made righteous, means and accomplished. But the error of your thinking is that this equates with the saving of souls or individuals.
The difference is saved mankind and saved each man.
Christ's work on the cross saved us from two things. Death and death. That is saved from the bondage to death and sin, saved from the curse of Adam. The physical was overcome.

The atonement of Christ is the second aspect of Christ's work and was necessary because He overcame death, the physical part of the fall. The atonement was to save us from the second death, or the spiritual. This spiritual is what man fell from due to the fall, which is physical death. It made the spiritual impossible. The first was imposed upon all men, mankind. The second death was also paid for. Christ bore the punishment of our sins, spiritual death for us. This is what He offers to mankind for the purpose of saving his soul, or from hell.
Hell cannot exist except that mankind be redeemed. Redeemed (saved)I agree. And saying the world is purchased gets the same idea across without causing confusion.
from the curse of Adam which is physical death.
I Cor 15 spells this out quite well. Vs 46 tells you the sequence of salvation, which happens to be the same sequence of the fall. John 6:39-40 also clearly spells out the distinction.
If you want to use the terminology of scripture you should use it as it is defined there, not in the dictionary which does not show that there are two aspects of salvation, mankind and man's.

That is not universalism. Christ redeeming the world is universal redemption but not universal salvation. There is a very clear distinction. to keep the distinction one must alway use mankind with universal redemption, never universal salvation. When speaking of the salvation of the soul it is the salvation of individual man, not mankind.

That I do not see, since it means the same thing again, different word but same meaning.

I read this post and the distinction is valid. However, I will never use the term "Mankind is redeemed." Unless I were to explain it like right away. RanRan never explain it to Trout. I doubt RanRan even knew how to explain it. But that's not important.

What it is important is to do as Paul did and "become all things to all men." How can I do that if I tell a modern person that mankind is redeemed? I am not one to water down Scriptures termniology by any means. But when I witness, I want to be clear. If "mankind is redeemed" confused me, a Christian, and Trout, a Christian, then it will probably confuse an unbeliever.

If you wish to keep the term and turn off Protestants or unbelievers coming into your church, who are ignorant of the termniology, that is your stubborn affair. If you explain it in Sunday school, that is fine. But I think it is not only selfish but irresponsible for a preist to use termniology that is going to confuse his flock, unless he explains it. I have been in several churches that don't explain theology or termniology. If that is your church, they are doing a poor job of teaching. Christ commanded the church to teach.

I see you never answered my "gay" and "faggot" example which is quite telling. What do you think of modern translations Rightglory? The whole point of modern translations is an attempt to "become all things to all men." It is an attempt to bring Scripture to a wider range of people, and not just the KJV fanatics.

Likewise, terms like "purchased" is an attempt to bring the clear Gospel to a wide range of people. I am not going to do this with all termniology, of course. Just termiology that would confuse unbelievers.

[The Plain Jane]

1. As the result of Adam's transgression, men are born in sin and by nature are spiritually dead; therefore, if they are to become God's children and enter His kingdom, they must be born again.
a. When Adam was placed in the garden of Eden, he was warned not to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil on the threat of immediate spiritual death (Gen 2:16, 17).
b. Adam disobeyed and ate of the forbidden fruit (Gen 3:1-7); consequently, he brought spiritual death upon himself and upon the human race (Rom 5:12; Eph 2:1-3; Col 2:13).
c. Although Eve also ate of the forbidden fruit and died spiritually, it is the sin of Adam that has thrown the whole human race into depravity because he sinned with full cognition of his actions; Eve, however, was deceived by the serpent (2 Tim 2:14).
d. David confessed that he, as well as all other men, was born in sin (Psa 51:5; 58:3).
e. Because men are born in sin and are by nature spiritually dead, Jesus taught that men must be born again if they are to enter God's kingdom (Jn 3:5-7; cp Jn 1:12, 13).

2. As the result of the fall, men are blind and deaf to spiritual truth. Their minds are darkened by sin; their hearts are corrupt and evil (Gen 6:5; 8:21; Eccl 9:3; Jer 17:9; Mk 7:21-23; Jn 3:19; Rom 8:7, 8; 1 Cor 2:14; Eph 4:17-19; 5:8; Tit 1:15).

3. Before sinners are born into God's kingdom through the regenerating power of the Spirit, they are children of the devil and under his control; they are slaves to sin (Jn 8:34, 44; Rom 6:20; Eph 2:1, 2; 2 Tim 2:25, 26; Tit 3:3; 1 Jn 3:10; 5:19).

4. The reign of sin is universal; all men are under its power; consequently none is righteous, i.e., born righteous. (2 Chron 6:36; Job 15:14-16; Psa 130:3; 143:2; Prov 20:9; Eccl :20, 29; Isa 53:6; 64:6; Rom 3:9-12; Jam 3:2, 8; 1 Jn 1:8, 10).

5. Men left in their dead state are unable to save themselves. They have no power within themselves, i.e., their own merit or work, to change their natures or to prepare themselves for salvation (Job 14:4; Jer 13:23; Matt 7:16-18; 12:33; Jn 6:44, 65; Rom 11:35, 36; 1 Cor 2:14; 4:7; 2 Cor 3:5).

6. Man in fallen state, though totally unable to produce any work or meritorious effort to satisfy God's righteousness, still has retained the image of God. This image of God is effaced, but not erased (Gen 1:26-27 cp Gen 9:6; 1 Cor 11:7; James 3:9).

Agree, certainly true.

7. The doctrine of Depravity, then does NOT declare that man is as depraved as he can be. Man is fallen, not a corpse incapable of movement. He is able to make the decision that God has given him to make. I.E. Salvation, as the Bible declares. (Acts 16:31, John 20:31, John 3:36, John 16-18, John 1:12, etc.)

This is where I disagree with the T. Lutherans teach that we are dead spiritually.

7] Namely, that in spiritual and divine things the intellect, heart, and will of the unregenerate man are utterly unable, by their own natural powers, to understand, believe, accept, think, will, begin, effect, do, work, or concur in working anything, but they are entirely dead to what is good, and corrupt, so that in man's nature since the Fall, before regeneration, there is not the least spark of spiritual power remaining, nor present, by which, of himself, he can prepare himself for God's grace, or accept the offered grace, nor be capable of it for and of himself, or apply or accommodate himself thereto, or by his own powers be able of himself, as of himself, to aid, do, work, or concur in working anything towards his conversion, either wholly, or half, or in any, even the least or most inconsiderable part; but that he is the servant [and slave] of sin, John 8, 34, and a captive of the devil, by whom he is moved, Eph. 2, 2; 2 Tim. 2, 26. Hence the natural free will according to its perverted disposition and nature is strong and active only with respect to what is displeasing and contrary to God.

~~The Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord, Book of Concord

8.Grace is not appreciated by anyone until they find out how powerless and hopeless and meritless they are. (This was Paul's point in Romans 4:2).

Grace is only apprieciated by regenerate man.

The Calvanist view of Depravity is that we are totally fallen and are likewise unable to believe in Christ. Again, another point that you must presuppose Unconditional Election to arrive at.

I don't think you have to believe in Uncondition Election to believe that mankind is unable to believe in Christ. Lutherans don't.

[The Plain Jane]

That is, the idea of “unlimited atonement” is only a pre-supposition that occurs in individuals’ minds – it has never existed anywhere in the Scriptures.

Dude, "limited atonement" is a pre-supposition as well.

[The Plain Jane]

This is a completely baseless charge. It would seem in reading this ENTIRE thread no one in support of LA has been able to provide scriptural support for THEIR position. I have. In case you missed them here they are again.

Trout provided support, and even though I don't believe it I provided support. This is a baseless charge as well. Have you been following your own thread?

[AGJ442]

This is where I disagree with the T. Lutherans teach that we are dead spiritually.

7] Namely, that in spiritual and divine things the intellect, heart, and will of the unregenerate man are utterly unable, by their own natural powers, to understand, believe, accept, think, will, begin, effect, do, work, or concur in working anything, but they are entirely dead to what is good, and corrupt, so that in man's nature since the Fall, before regeneration, there is not the least spark of spiritual power remaining, nor present, by which, of himself, he can prepare himself for God's grace, or accept the offered grace, nor be capable of it for and of himself, or apply or accommodate himself thereto, or by his own powers be able of himself, as of himself, to aid, do, work, or concur in working anything towards his conversion, either wholly, or half, or in any, even the least or most inconsiderable part; but that he is the servant [and slave] of sin, John 8, 34, and a captive of the devil, by whom he is moved, Eph. 2, 2; 2 Tim. 2, 26. Hence the natural free will according to its perverted disposition and nature is strong and active only with respect to what is displeasing and contrary to God.

~~The Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord, Book of Concord.

This statement almost exactly describes the Calvinistic doctrine of Total Depravity. If you look at the highlighted text, it essentially says that we are unable to believe in Christ.

I don't think you have to believe in Uncondition Election to believe that mankind is unable to believe in Christ. Lutherans don't.

Can you tell me how? If you believe that we do not have the ability to believe in Christ, and that ability must be given to us by God... then since all are not saved, God only chooses some to give that ability to i.e. electing them, then that is for all intents and purposes is the doctrine of Unconditional Election as a Calvanist would describe it. I'm sorry, I am not exactly familiar with the Lutheran doctrinal positions. Do you hold to free will?

[AGJ442]

Trout provided support, and even though I don't believe it I provided support. This is a baseless charge as well. Have you been following your own thread?

My apologies to Trout and yourself. Yes, you did provide scripture references. I had in mind someone else who was using unrelated verses and logic to defend their position when I wrote that.

[The Plain Jane]

This statement almost exactly describes the Calvinistic doctrine of Total Depravity. If you look at the highlighted text, it essentially says that we are unable to believe in Christ.

I will dig through the Book of Concord if I must, but we believe you are a corspe born into the world. You are spiritually dead, unable to choose good, and the "good" you choose is sin.

But I disagree with you. "There is not the least spark of spiritual power remaining" indicates that we are dead spiritually. Calvinists teach that we are not totally depraved. We can still do good. This text is saying, that no, we can't.

Can you tell me how? If you believe that we do not have the ability to believe in Christ, and that ability must be given to us by God... then since all are not saved, God only chooses some to give that ability to i.e. electing them, then that is for all intents and purposes is the doctrine of Unconditional Election as a Calvanist would describe it. I'm sorry, I am not exactly familiar with the Lutheran doctrinal positions. Do you hold to free will?

Lutherans do not believe in Free Will. We believe something called Bondage of the Will. Luther wrote a whole book on it. But I have summed it up here:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...28&postcount=1

Lutherans do teach--when it comes down to it--that God saves some and not others. That is the logical conclusion of Bound Will. But unlike Calvinists, we do not say "Why." We do not say that God hates some and not others, and that is why. We do not say that God chooses some and not others in the sense that Calvinist do.

But is impossible not for us not to guess as to the why though. Unconditional Election means that you are randomly selected to be in the Kingdom. But Lutherans would say that doesn't make sense because why isn't there Christians spread out evenly all over the world? The reason, Lutherans say, is because where the Gospel and the Sacraments are, there is the Chruch. So Election is dependant partly on where you are born and missionaries and all kinds of factors. It is dependant upon Law and Gospel being preached.

Part of the reason why there aren't more Christians is because the Word isn't in every cornor of the world. The Word is what saves. God chooses his flock through the power of the Word.

We still say God desires all to come to repentance, but at the same time, we say with Paul that we are DEAD in trespasses and sins.

I hope this explains things a bit better, because Bondage of the Will and Total Depreviety are both deep theological concepts and can't be grasped over night. They are similar, but very different. They arrive at different conclusions.

[The Plain Jane]

My apologies to Trout and yourself.

Forgiven brother.

Yes, you did provide scripture references. I had in mind someone else who was using unrelated verses and logic to defend their position when I wrote that.

I think we can all guess who that was. Haven't been posting, I wonder if he is still reading along.

[Rightglory]

Jane,

If "mankind is redeemed" confused me, a Christian, and Trout, a Christian, then it will probably confuse an unbeliever.

I would think not, since an unbeliever would not have the presuppositions which either you and Trout might have had which makes it confusing for you. Scripture uses that term constantly and I do not see the need for confusion.

I see you never answered my "gay" and "faggot" example which is quite telling. What do you think of modern translations Rightglory?

They were irrelevant to the contrast. Redemption in scripture has never been referred only to the salvation of individuals. It has not been understood that way for 2000 years. The problem comes in when someone has the idea that redemption is only pertaining to beleivers. It has NEVER pertained to believers only.
Now having said that there are a couple of places where Paul is speaking to believers and uses the word, which could decieve except the context is that it refers to mankind of which believers are a portion thereof, thus also redeemed.

The whole point of modern translations is an attempt to "become all things to all men." It is an attempt to bring Scripture to a wider range of people, and not just the KJV fanatics.

And that is the whole problem with translations today. The translator imposes his interpretation upon scripture. He adds or changes scripture to suit his particular understanding. That is not translating but interpreting. Big difference.
For, example, the translation, The Good News, is a sorry mess. It was paraphrased to suit a particular view and if one did not know what the verse stated correctly translated, you would not only be confused but way off from the original meaning.

Likewise, terms like "purchased" is an attempt to bring the clear Gospel to a wide range of people.

And just how does this help. The word is also used in scripture. If you substituted it in place of redeemed, it still has the same meaning - namely. all of mankind was purchased.
I can assure you the terminology would not confuse an unbeliever. At least I know of none, and I know of no one writing over the last 2000 years that made that claim and thus the support of a different word to lessen all the confusion.

[Rightglory]

AGJ442,

When Adam was placed in the garden of Eden, he was warned not to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil on the threat of immediate spiritual death (Gen 2:16, 17).

Does Gen (Gen 2:16, 17) say spiritual death?

b. Adam disobeyed and ate of the forbidden fruit (Gen 3:1-7); consequently, he brought spiritual death upon himself and upon the human race (Rom 5:12; Eph 2:1-3; Col 2:13).

Do we inherit physical death or spiritual death? What is your definition of each?

The reign of sin is universal; all men are under its power;

What is its power?

You had a list of 6 items but not a single one of them mentioned physical death, why not?
I ask because the principle, primary purpose of Christ' work on the Cross was to overcome death, physical death, thus the resurrection is the key to the whole of salvation. At least that is how I see it.

[The Plain Jane]

I would think not, since an unbeliever would not have the presuppositions which either you and Trout might have had which makes it confusing for you. Scripture uses that term constantly and I do not see the need for confusion.

They were irrelevant to the contrast. Redemption in scripture has never been referred only to the salvation of individuals. It has not been understood that way for 2000 years. The problem comes in when someone has the idea that redemption is only pertaining to beleivers. It has NEVER pertained to believers only.
Now having said that there are a couple of places where Paul is speaking to believers and uses the word, which could decieve except the context is that it refers to mankind of which believers are a portion thereof, thus also redeemed.

Ok. I know Paul uses the word. But Paul wrote to Christains. Unless Paul states otherwise, we assume that what he is saying pertains to Christians only. Have a verse in mind?

I have never known redeem to be a reference to everyone. In the Gospel of Luke, redeemed occured two times and it was both a reference to God's people, not to the world.

And that is the whole problem with translations today. The translator imposes his interpretation upon scripture. He adds or changes scripture to suit his particular understanding. That is not translating but interpreting. Big difference.
For, example, the translation, The Good News, is a sorry mess. It was paraphrased to suit a particular view and if one did not know what the verse stated correctly translated, you would not only be confused but way off from the original meaning.

You misunderstood me. I said modern translations, not modern paraphrases. A movie was based on the Gospel of John of the Good News Bible and it sucked.

I mean translations like New American Standard Bible and English Standard Version. They are the most accurate today in terms of the original manuscripts. Plus you don't have to be know ancient words like "thee" to understand it. It, as I said, reaches out and touches a greater number of people than the KJV could ever hope to do in this day and age.

And just how does this help. The word is also used in scripture. If you substituted it in place of redeemed, it still has the same meaning - namely. all of mankind was purchased.

The word is used in letters written to Christians.

I can assure you the terminology would not confuse an unbeliever. At least I know of none, and I know of no one writing over the last 2000 years that made that claim and thus the support of a different word to lessen all the confusion.

Do you have evidence of this? Have you talked to many unbelievers who verify this is the case? Do they say they know exactly what you mean by "redeem the world" and can tell you what it means without you telling them yourself?

[The Plain Jane]

AGJ442,

Does Gen (Gen 2:16, 17) say spiritual death?
Do we inherit physical death or spiritual death? What is your definition of each?

What is its power?

You had a list of 6 items but not a single one of them mentioned physical death, why not?
I ask because the principle, primary purpose of Christ' work on the Cross was to overcome death, physical death, thus the resurrection is the key to the whole of salvation. At least that is how I see it.

I think you misunderstand Rightglory. He is representing the view, he doesn't believe it.

[AGJ442]

I think you misunderstand Rightglory. He is representing the view, he doesn't believe it.

Actually, I do believe the view that I posted. In my experience however, this is not the view that most of today's Calvanists hold. They would agree with you that man is totally depraved and unable to make a good decision. Basically a corpse. No good left at all. The view that I posted is a bit different. I am not actually an Arminian, even though my posts might seem like it. I think that there is a middle ground between Arminianism and Calvanism that makes scripture much clearer. I also do believe in free will.

[AGJ442]

Does Gen (Gen 2:16, 17) say spiritual death?

I think that it is implied. God says "in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." Adam lived over 900 years after he ate of the tree. So it couldn't haver been talking about physical death.

Do we inherit physical death or spiritual death? What is your definition of each?

We inherit both.

Spiritual Death is separation from God in time – the divine condemnation at the point of birth (Gen. 2:17; Rom. 5:12; 6:23; Eph. 2:1).

Physical death is obviously the end of our life here on earth.

What is its power?

Romans 6 says that we are slaves to sin. It's power is that it separates us from God. This is the whole reason that we need a Savior.

You had a list of 6 items but not a single one of them mentioned physical death, why not?
I ask because the principle, primary purpose of Christ' work on the Cross was to overcome death, physical death, thus the resurrection is the key to the whole of salvation. At least that is how I see it.

The reason I didn't mention physical death is because we are talking about the depravity of man which has nothing to do with physical death. Yes at the resurrection we will be given our glorified bodies and will live eternally but first we have to be reconciled to God by believing in Christ who is the propitiation for our sins. Christ taking the sins of the world upon himself is the key to salvation.