Limited Atonement?

[RanRan]

Yes but it demonstrates your ignorance of basic termology,

I don't think that's going to fly - unless people agree with you that Christ's sacrifce atoned them - talk about an ignorance of basic terminology. (which you cannot even spell)

[Trout]

I don't think that's going to fly - unless people agree with you that Christ's sacrifce[sic] atoned them - talk about an ignorance of basic terminology. (which you cannot even spell)

[The Plain Jane]

I don't think that's going to fly - unless people agree with you that Christ's sacrifce atoned them - talk about an ignorance of basic terminology. (which you cannot even spell)

Hey, the world is full of people who can't speel spell.

And what you said didn't make much sense. Everyone agrees the Chris't sacrifie has atoned them. You and one measly Lutheran are the only ones I have heard of talking of "Christ atoning God"--which you will not explain.

So it is meaningless to continue to use the term if no one knows what you mean by it. I distinctly remember NJon saying "God is already perfect. God doesn't need to atone Himself." That is a paraphrase, but accurate.

I am not in ignorance of the termology terminology of atonement. I am in agreement with the sites defintion and why would the site have the wrong one? It is representative of Christendom's understanding of atonement. And if I may quote you "jumping up and down isn't going to change it."

Your understanding of atonement has been supported by one Lutheran. One measly Lutheran who himself was rebuked by others. Doesn't sound like your understanding of atonement has much support.

Steering the subject back on topic, I do agree with you that Christ died for the world. Why don't we define atonement? What is it exactly? What has it accomplished? Who does it cover and why does it cover them? If you wish to make a name for yourself to AGJ442, you might be wise to answer the questions instead of ignoing them as you have done in the past.

[RanRan]

And what you said didn't make much sense. Everyone agrees the Chris't sacrifie has atoned them. You and one measly Lutheran are the only ones I have heard of talking of "Christ atoning God"--which you will not explain.

I'll let Luther, who agrees with me, explain it to you:

"All the prophets well foresaw in the Spirit, that Christ, by imputation, would become the greatest sinner upon the face of the earth, and a sacrifice for the sins of the whole world; would be no more considered an innocent person and without sin; or the Son of God in glory, but a notorious sinner, and so be for awhile forsaken (Psalm 8), and have lying upon his neck the sins of all mankind; the sins of St. Paul, who was a blasphemer of God, and a persecutor of his church; St. Peter’s sins, that denied Christ; David’s sins who was an adulterer and a murderer, through whom the name of the Lord among the heathen was blasphemed.

"Therefore the law, which Moses gave to be executed upon all malefactors and murderers in general, took hold on Christ, finding him with and among sinners and murderers, though in his own person innocent. This manner of picturing Christ to us, the sophists, robbers of God, obscure and falsify; for they will not that Christ was made a curse for us, to the end he might deliver us from the curse of the law, nor that he has anything to do with sin and poor sinners; though for their sakes alone was he made man and died, but they set before us merely Christ’s examples, which they say we ought to imitate and follow; and thus they not only steal from Christ his proper name and title, but also make of him a severe and angry judge, a fearful and horrible tyrant, full of wrath against poor sinners, and bent on condemning them. "

Boy did he nail that one! Luther believed that Christ redeemed humanity.

[RanRan]

Do you seriously want people to misunderstand you?

You call yourself a Lutheran and yet misunderstand Lutheranism. Misunderstandings will come - but calling me a heretic every other post is really going over the edge. There is no call for that except to attribute it to your ignorance of what Luther said and the Confessions themselves, and, by extension the early church, since Lutheranism considers itself apostolic.

I think it bothers people that I have drawn my theology from the early fathers and they have no recourse but to get ticked off - because they can't change that history of their foundation - because those apostolic fathers with Apostles are that foundation with the cornerstome being Christ. The church has always believed that Christ redeemed humanity, even as she got off track as the Gospel was politicized to exclude (there has never been more of that going on than now.) Luther was not innnocent of that. I take his polemic writings with a grain of salt.

[AGJ442]

I think it bothers people that I have drawn my theology from the early fathers and they have no recourse but to get ticked off - because they can't change that history of their foundation - because those apostolic fathers with Apostles are that foundation with the cornerstome being Christ. The church has always believed that Christ redeemed humanity, even as she got off track as the Gospel was politicized to exclude (there has never been more of that going on than now.) Luther was not innnocent of that. I take his polemic writings with a grain of salt.

RanRan, Is your position that because Christ paid for the sins of humanity at the cross, that they will not be judged for that sin at the Great White Throne judgement? What they will be judged for is the failure to accept Christ, thereby not having his righteousness credited to their account such as Abraham? Based on verses such as 2 Cor. 5:19 along with other verses previously posted here, and Revelation 20:12-15 where it says that unbelievers are judged based on their deeds i.e. human works, but God's standard is Christ's righteousness.

If so, I have heard this view before. Just trying to understand where you are coming from.

[Rightglory]

Jane,

Yes but it demonstrates your ignorance of basic termology, and it has been pointed out to you and you still continue to use the term.

Ah, but definitions according to whom.
Just reading the thread, respective of RanRan and your statements regarding the term "universal redemption" has been defined theologically for a very long time, since the Apostles to be exact.
Christ did in fact 'redeem the world". Col 1:20 clearly defines that extent, as well as many others.

However, it does not mean what you think or what I assume you think it means, that Christ saved every single soul from Hell. That is Universalism. That is the group that beleives that not only did Christ "redeem" the world (saved the world from the Adamic curse) but as well saved them relative to their souls, eventually, though they do believe in a temporary hell.

Putting any kind of limitation on Christ's work makes God a respector of persons. It also denies a lot of scripture relative to purpose of Christ's Work. Any limitation also redefines the historical definition of the Incarnation.

And keeping within the title of the thread, limited atonement falls into that category. The primary reason it is defined incorrectly.

[The Plain Jane]

You call yourself a Lutheran and yet misunderstand Lutheranism. Misunderstandings will come - but calling me a heretic every other post is really going over the edge. There is no call for that except to attribute it to your ignorance of what Luther said and the Confessions themselves, and, by extension the early church, since Lutheranism considers itself apostolic.

Really? I do? Lutheranism is defined by the Book of Concord RanRan. And last I heard you reject Bondage of the Will, which is set in the Book of Concord. Why can't you produce a quote from the Book of Concord RanRan? No such quote exists.

RanRan, tell me of one denomantion that teaches all mankind is forgiven. Just one, a major denomnation that teaches that. RanRan, in my book a heretic is someone who teaches something contrary to what all of Christendom holds. I am not calling you a heretic when you say all mankind is redeemed. I know you have a different idea of what redeemed means. The all mankind is forgiven is what I'm calling you a heretic for.

I would not call Ariminians heretics even though I'm convinced in my mind that Free Will is heresy. That is something that the Body of Christ can disagree on. But I don't know of anyone who teaches all mankind is forgiven.

I think it bothers people that I have drawn my theology from the early fathers and they have no recourse but to get ticked off

Produce a quote from a father who said all mankind is forgiven.

- because they can't change that history of their foundation - because those apostolic fathers with Apostles are that foundation with the cornerstome being Christ.

Hard to change something that doesn't exist, the teaching that all mankind is forgiven.

The church has always believed that Christ redeemed humanity, even as she got off track as the Gospel was politicized to exclude (there has never been more of that going on than now.)

Yes, but the meaning of the word redeemed for many has changed. Say the world was purchased. It is theological correct and it doesn't imply unversialism.

Luther was not innnocent of that. I take his polemic writings with a grain of salt.

Can you produce a quote from Luther that this is the case? Is it in his early writings or late writings?

[The Plain Jane]

I'll let Luther, who agrees with me, explain it to you:

"All the prophets well foresaw in the Spirit, that Christ, by imputation, would become the greatest sinner upon the face of the earth, and a sacrifice for the sins of the whole world; would be no more considered an innocent person and without sin; or the Son of God in glory, but a notorious sinner, and so be for awhile forsaken (Psalm 8), and have lying upon his neck the sins of all mankind; the sins of St. Paul, who was a blasphemer of God, and a persecutor of his church; St. Peter’s sins, that denied Christ; David’s sins who was an adulterer and a murderer, through whom the name of the Lord among the heathen was blasphemed.

"Therefore the law, which Moses gave to be executed upon all malefactors and murderers in general, took hold on Christ, finding him with and among sinners and murderers, though in his own person innocent. This manner of picturing Christ to us, the sophists, robbers of God, obscure and falsify; for they will not that Christ was made a curse for us, to the end he might deliver us from the curse of the law, nor that he has anything to do with sin and poor sinners; though for their sakes alone was he made man and died, but they set before us merely Christ’s examples, which they say we ought to imitate and follow; and thus they not only steal from Christ his proper name and title, but also make of him a severe and angry judge, a fearful and horrible tyrant, full of wrath against poor sinners, and bent on condemning them. "

Boy did he nail that one! Luther believed that Christ redeemed humanity.

And this coming from someone who takes Luther for a grain of salt.

RanRan, no where in this quotes does he say all mankind is forgiven.

[RanRan]

RanRan, tell me of one denomantion that teaches all mankind is forgiven.

Lutherans

[The Plain Jane]

Lutherans

Educated me. A quote from the Book of Concord please?

[RanRan]

Educated me. A quote from the Book of Concord please?

"Also they teach that the Word, that is, the Son of God, did assume the human nature in 2] the womb of the blessed Virgin Mary, so that there are two natures, the divine and the human, inseparably enjoined in one Person, one Christ, true God and true man, who was born of the Virgin Mary, truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and 3] buried, that He might reconcile the Father unto us, and be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for all actual sins of men." Augsburg Confession

[The Plain Jane]

Jane,
Ah, but definitions according to whom.

I have explained this two or three times, but I'll explain it again.

I see a cheerful man and I say to him "You look rather gay today." He is deeply offended. Why? Because the defintion according to me, Webster, and many authors it means he's happy. I have abused the common use of the word. I would have communicated my idea better if I had said "You look rather cheerful today."

I and others are sitting around a campfire, and it is getting dim. I say "I'm going to throw some faggots on the fire." Everyone is shocked. Why? Because the defintion according to me, Webster, and many authors it means twigs. I have abused the common use of the word. I would have communicated my idea better if I had said "I'm going to throw some wood on the fire."

This could go on and on. My point is if you want to communicate an idea, use the word as it is commoningly use, or pick another word. Suppose someone who thinks redeemed means saved is reading this thread. They will come away thinking Christianity teaches all men are saved, let out a big "Whew!" and never bother with Christ again--thus damn themselves. You have to take that into consideration. That is why when RanRan met opposition from Trout, he should have explained his idea of redeemed. Because Trout and I are thinking that the redeemed in Hell is a contradiciton.

Just reading the thread, respective of RanRan and your statements regarding the term "universal redemption" has been defined theologically for a very long time, since the Apostles to be exact.
Christ did in fact 'redeem the world". Col 1:20 clearly defines that extent, as well as many others.

But the meaning of the word has changed for many, as shown above.

However, it does not mean what you think or what I assume you think it means, that Christ saved every single soul from Hell.

Exactly, and I'm not the only one who thinks this. MANY people think this, not just a few.

That is Universalism.

Which can be described in todays terms "Christ redeemed the world."

That is the group that beleives that not only did Christ "redeem" the world (saved the world from the Adamic curse) but as well saved them relative to their souls, eventually, though they do believe in a temporary hell.

Yes, I am quite aware, thanks for the review.

Putting any kind of limitation on Christ's work makes God a respector of persons. It also denies a lot of scripture relative to purpose of Christ's Work. Any limitation also redefines the historical definition of the Incarnation.

I agree. And saying the world is purchased gets the same idea across without causing confusion.

And keeping within the title of the thread, limited atonement falls into that category. The primary reason it is defined incorrectly.

I agree.

[The Plain Jane]

"Also they teach that the Word, that is, the Son of God, did assume the human nature in 2] the womb of the blessed Virgin Mary, so that there are two natures, the divine and the human, inseparably enjoined in one Person, one Christ, true God and true man, who was born of the Virgin Mary, truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and 3] buried, that He might reconcile the Father unto us, and be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for all actual sins of men." Augsburg Confession

That does not say that all men are forgiven. That says that all sins have been punished.

Admit it RanRan, all mankind forgiven is not a Lutheran teaching and jumping up and down isn't going to change what was written 500 years ago.

[The Plain Jane]

RanRan, Is your position that because Christ paid for the sins of humanity at the cross, that they will not be judged for that sin at the Great White Throne judgement? What they will be judged for is the failure to accept Christ, thereby not having his righteousness credited to their account such as Abraham? Based on verses such as 2 Cor. 5:19 along with other verses previously posted here, and Revelation 20:12-15 where it says that unbelievers are judged based on their deeds i.e. human works, but God's standard is Christ's righteousness.

If so, I have heard this view before. Just trying to understand where you are coming from.

I wouldn't expect an answer from him, I ask him questions all the time that he ignores. He never answered the questions in POST 123--I knew he wouldn't because answering them would expose his heresy.

RanRan doesn't believe in Judgement cause in his mind all sin is forgiven.

He doesn't believe like Paul that the wrath of God resides on unrepentant homosexuals.

If you want to discuss Scripture, as Trout said, this is not the person. He takes it out of context (I will dig through his posts and prove it if you wish) and has even said some words of Christ doesn't apply today.

Yes, this is someone who can be trusted to teach good doctrine.

But are you going to discuss the rest of the TULIP? Did you see my brief analysis of it eariler in the thread?