Limited atonement?

[christundivided]

BibleBeliever posted this in the Calvinism thread and no one has refuted it so I figured I'd post again and see if anyone has answers (specifically addressing the verses he uses.)

I didn't refute this in the Calvinism thread. I asked when he became a universalist.

I don't know what a Universalist is.
Is this your way of avoiding a question because you don't know the answer?

For him... Yes it is.

A Universalist is someone that believes that Christ died for all of mankind.... Thus all of mankind will be saved.

 

[subllibrm]

BibleBeliever posted this in the Calvinism thread and no one has refuted it so I figured I'd post again and see if anyone has answers (specifically addressing the verses he uses.)

I didn't refute this in the Calvinism thread. I asked when he became a universalist.

I don't know what a Universalist is.
Is this your way of avoiding a question because you don't know the answer?

For him... Yes it is.

A Universalist is someone that believes that Christ died for all of mankind.... Thus all of mankind will be saved.

He did didn't He?

 

[christundivided]

BibleBeliever posted this in the Calvinism thread and no one has refuted it so I figured I'd post again and see if anyone has answers (specifically addressing the verses he uses.)

I didn't refute this in the Calvinism thread. I asked when he became a universalist.

I don't know what a Universalist is.
Is this your way of avoiding a question because you don't know the answer?

For him... Yes it is.

A Universalist is someone that believes that Christ died for all of mankind.... Thus all of mankind will be saved.

He did didn't He?

A Calvinist would say that Christ died for all "of a kind". That "kind"....is the "Elect".

Are you sure you're not a Calvinist?

 

[Recovering IFB]

Let me ask this.
In the OT, when they had sacrificed an animal, was that sacrifice for the whole world or for the Jews only?

 

[christundivided]

Let me ask this.
In the OT, when they had sacrificed an animal, was that sacrifice for the whole world or for the Jews only?

Man provided those sacrifices for himself..... God provided His sacrifice.... for Himself. Entirely two different things. God's sacrifice is so MUCH BETTER.....There is no absolute correlation between the two.

 

[Recovering IFB]

Let me ask this.
In the OT, when they had sacrificed an animal, was that sacrifice for the whole world or for the Jews only?

Man provided those sacrifices for himself..... God provided His sacrifice.... for Himself. Entirely two different things. God's sacrifice is so MUCH BETTER.....There is no absolute correlation between the two.

Actually, God commanded the Jews to sacrifice animals. Leviticus 1

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Hey, back to the incarnation thing (aren't you happy I steered it back there?), how many physical incarnations of God/Jesus were there?

You'd get varying numbers depending on who you ask.  Some people say he appeared in Joshua 5.  Some say he was Melchizedek.  I think there are other supposed "appearances". 

 

[Ransom]

The logical problem with this goes to the question why? Why must sin be punished? Is God bound by a system of justice that is greater than he is?

Justice is an attribute of God. It's not that he is bound to a system greater than himself; rather, it is he who established what justice is, flowing out of his own good character, and in effect he holds himself to his own standards.  Additionally, God is perfectly just: he applies his standards fairly and equitably to all creation.

Sin must be punished, because if sin is not punished, then God is not just.  And sin must be punished equitably: if God forgives some sinners but not others, merely because it is his prerogative to do so, then he is again not demonstrating justice, but capriciousness. We wind up with a god like the Muslim Allah, who ostensibly judges all men by weighing their good and bad deeds in the scales, but ultimately decides their fates on his own whim and so there can be no promise of paradise even for the most faithful Muslim.

The problem with the atonement is not the nature of forgiveness. It is with the nature of justice. God's forgiveness is based objectively in the satisfaction of his justice. There is no mercy unless justice is properly understood.

Not to mention the fact that normally PNA doesn't work. Can I volunteer to go to jail for the bank robber, or the drug dealer who was sentenced in court yesterday?

Just because no system of jurisprudence incorporates some form of penal substitution, doesn't mean that a) such a system could not theoretically exist; or b) that divine justice therefore cannot incorporate it.

First, it is God himself who established the system of penal substitution, through the system of Temple sacrifices. They were incapable of truly or permanently taking away sin (Heb. 10:11). But they did tell the people both that sin required the taking of a life, and that forgiveness was available. The Temple system of course ultimately pointed to the sacrifice and intercession of Christ, who was able to propitiate the Father and offer forgiveness once and for all. As a matter of fact, the weaker theories of the Atonement (such as Abelard's moral influence or the Socinians' example of obedience theories) can't make any connection between Christ and the Old Testament saints. Only penal substitution theory can explain their salvation.

But of course, sin doesn't have to be punished. We're told in Scripture that in addition to sinning against God, we sin against each other. And we're commanded to forgive freely.

So if I my friend lies to me, I don't get to punish him for it before I offer forgiveness. I certainly don't get to punish some innocent third party before I offer forgiveness. Rather, I'm called to forgive freely.

But that forgiveness isn't exercised merely on our own prerogative, is it? Eph. 4:32 says, "forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you." We forgive because we have been forgiven. And we have been forgiven in Christ, because Christ died for us: "[M]y blood of the covenant . . . is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins" (Matt. 26:28). So the forgiveness we show others is predicated on an objective basis, just like the forgiveness God shows us.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

The logical problem with this goes to the question why? Why must sin be punished? Is God bound by a system of justice that is greater than he is?

Justice is an attribute of God. It's not that he is bound to a system greater than himself; rather, it is he who established what justice is, flowing out of his own good character, and in effect he holds himself to his own standards.  Additionally, God is perfectly just: he applies his standards fairly and equitably to all creation.

Sin must be punished, because if sin is not punished, then God is not just.  And sin must be punished equitably: if God forgives some sinners but not others, merely because it is his prerogative to do so, then he is again not demonstrating justice, but capriciousness. We wind up with a god like the Muslim Allah, who ostensibly judges all men by weighing their good and bad deeds in the scales, but ultimately decides their fates on his own whim and so there can be no promise of paradise even for the most faithful Muslim.

The problem with the atonement is not the nature of forgiveness. It is with the nature of justice. God's forgiveness is based objectively in the satisfaction of his justice. There is no mercy unless justice is properly understood.

Not to mention the fact that normally PNA doesn't work. Can I volunteer to go to jail for the bank robber, or the drug dealer who was sentenced in court yesterday?

Just because no system of jurisprudence incorporates some form of penal substitution, doesn't mean that a) such a system could not theoretically exist; or b) that divine justice therefore cannot incorporate it.

First, it is God himself who established the system of penal substitution, through the system of Temple sacrifices. They were incapable of truly or permanently taking away sin (Heb. 10:11). But they did tell the people both that sin required the taking of a life, and that forgiveness was available. The Temple system of course ultimately pointed to the sacrifice and intercession of Christ, who was able to propitiate the Father and offer forgiveness once and for all. As a matter of fact, the weaker theories of the Atonement (such as Abelard's moral influence or the Socinians' example of obedience theories) can't make any connection between Christ and the Old Testament saints. Only penal substitution theory can explain their salvation.

But of course, sin doesn't have to be punished. We're told in Scripture that in addition to sinning against God, we sin against each other. And we're commanded to forgive freely.

So if I my friend lies to me, I don't get to punish him for it before I offer forgiveness. I certainly don't get to punish some innocent third party before I offer forgiveness. Rather, I'm called to forgive freely.

But that forgiveness isn't exercised merely on our own prerogative, is it? Eph. 4:32 says, "forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you." We forgive because we have been forgiven. And we have been forgiven in Christ, because Christ died for us: "[M]y blood of the covenant . . . is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins" (Matt. 26:28). So the forgiveness we show others is predicated on an objective basis, just like the forgiveness God shows us.

I was hoping someone would provide a satisfactory answer to these points. Thank you.

 

[christundivided]

Hey, back to the incarnation thing (aren't you happy I steered it back there?), how many physical incarnations of God/Jesus were there?

You'd get varying numbers depending on who you ask.  Some people say he appeared in Joshua 5.  Some say he was Melchizedek.  I think there are other supposed "appearances".

The called the doctrine of the Eternal Sonship. That God the Son.... has always been the Eternal Son of God. However, this does not mean that Christ took upon Himself the form of humanity multiple times in multiple incarnations.

Melchizedek was a living human being that was one of the early Kings of Jerusalem. (when it was called Salem). He was a priest BEFORE the priestly line of Aaron. This the argument made by the writer of Hebrews to explain why Christ wasn't lineage of Aaron... and yet was our Great High Priest. It was also an argument that proved there was a priestly order prior to the Mosaic Law.

 

[christundivided]

Let me ask this.
In the OT, when they had sacrificed an animal, was that sacrifice for the whole world or for the Jews only?

Man provided those sacrifices for himself..... God provided His sacrifice.... for Himself. Entirely two different things. God's sacrifice is so MUCH BETTER.....There is no absolute correlation between the two.

Actually, God commanded the Jews to sacrifice animals. Leviticus 1

and this means what? God made the first animal sacrifice.... Himself in Gen 3:21. All animal sacrifices stem from this sacrifice. It teaches a "covering" or "clothing" of man's nakedness to himself.

 

[ddgently]

Justice is an attribute of God. It's not that he is bound to a system greater than himself; rather, it is he who established what justice is . . .  Sin must be punished, because if sin is not punished, then God is not just.

See what you do there? You say Justice is defined by the very character of God (which I would agree with) and yet in the next breath you impose an external definition of what it would take for Him to be just. It's circular.

And sin must be punished equitably: if God forgives some sinners but not others, merely because it is his prerogative to do so, then he is again not demonstrating justice, but capriciousness.

First, it is God himself who established the system of penal substitution, through the system of Temple sacrifices. They were incapable of truly or permanently taking away sin (Heb. 10:11). But they did tell the people both that sin required the taking of a life, and that forgiveness was available. The Temple system of course ultimately pointed to the sacrifice and intercession of Christ, who was able to propitiate the Father and offer forgiveness once and for all.

Sin has consequences, there is no doubt. But "penal sacrifice" was in the OT and remains in the Church age, a picture, not a transaction.

As a matter of fact, the weaker theories of the Atonement (such as Abelard's moral influence or the Socinians' example of obedience theories) can't make any connection between Christ and the Old Testament saints. Only penal substitution theory can explain their salvation.

Or God's grace...

But that forgiveness isn't exercised merely on our own prerogative, is it? Eph. 4:32 says, "forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you." We forgive because we have been forgiven. And we have been forgiven in Christ, because Christ died for us: "[M]y blood of the covenant . . . is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins" (Matt. 26:28). So the forgiveness we show others is predicated on an objective basis, just like the forgiveness God shows us.

So (to go back to the picture of Allah tipping the scale), there really is a cosmic scale, and the only reason God or you or I can forgive anyone is because Jesus tipped it?

 

[Ransom]

See what you do there? You say Justice is defined by the very character of God (which I would agree with) and yet in the next breath you impose an external definition of what it would take for Him to be just. It's circular.

No. You are making the assumption that "sin must be punished" is an external definition.

God is the creator of all things, including whatever moral principles are woven into the fabric of creation. If sin must be punished, it is because God himself decreed so. It's part of his own character, and "he cannot deny himself" (2 Tim. 2:13).

God acting in accordance with his own nature and decrees is not circular.

 

[Recovering IFB]

Let me ask this.
In the OT, when they had sacrificed an animal, was that sacrifice for the whole world or for the Jews only?

Man provided those sacrifices for himself..... God provided His sacrifice.... for Himself. Entirely two different things. God's sacrifice is so MUCH BETTER.....There is no absolute correlation between the two.

Actually, God commanded the Jews to sacrifice animals. Leviticus 1

and this means what? God made the first animal sacrifice.... Himself in Gen 3:21. All animal sacrifices stem from this sacrifice. It teaches a "covering" or "clothing" of man's nakedness to himself.

No, read Leviticus 1&4 where it talks about sacrifice for the sins if people, then I ask again;
Was the sacrifice of animals in the OT, for the Jews only or for the whole world?

 

[christundivided]

No, read Leviticus 1&4 where it talks about sacrifice for the sins if people, then I ask again;
Was the sacrifice of animals in the OT, for the Jews only or for the whole world?

The offering was for himself.

Lev 1:3  If his offering be a burnt sacrifice of the herd, let him offer a male without blemish: he shall offer it of his own voluntary will at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the LORD.

Even so, it is clear that Christ tasted death for every man.

Heb 2:9  But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

 

[Recovering IFB]

No, read Leviticus 1&4 where it talks about sacrifice for the sins if people, then I ask again;
Was the sacrifice of animals in the OT, for the Jews only or for the whole world?

The offering was for himself.

Lev 1:3  If his offering be a burnt sacrifice of the herd, let him offer a male without blemish: he shall offer it of his own voluntary will at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the LORD.

Even so, it is clear that Christ tasted death for every man.

Heb 2:9  But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

Great! So everybody gets saved!
Now answer my question, was the sacrifices in the OT (Lev ch 1&4)for the Jews or the whole world

 

[christundivided]

No, read Leviticus 1&4 where it talks about sacrifice for the sins if people, then I ask again;
Was the sacrifice of animals in the OT, for the Jews only or for the whole world?

The offering was for himself.

Lev 1:3  If his offering be a burnt sacrifice of the herd, let him offer a male without blemish: he shall offer it of his own voluntary will at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the LORD.

Even so, it is clear that Christ tasted death for every man.

Heb 2:9  But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

Great! So everybody gets saved!
Now answer my question, was the sacrifices in the OT (Lev ch 1&4)for the Jews or the whole world

I quoted Lev 1:3 and said it was for the sins of the "offer-er. " Here it is again.

If his offering be a burnt sacrifice of the herd, let him offer a male without blemish: he shall offer it of his own voluntary will at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the LORD.

I imagine if the person making the offering was a Jew it would be for a Jew.

I do particularly like the part in Lev 1:3 about "his own voluntary will".... Did you notice the words added to describe "his will"? It was more than just "his will".

 

[Recovering IFB]

Yes I do notice that, that is a picture of Christ voluntarily given up His life for us.
Thank you for answering question. It is God who initiates everything with man to bring him to repentance. Man has nothing of his own accord but to obey.