Limited Atonement - is it Biblical?

[mrs]

I'll take one! No complaints on colour either!

[Trinity]

ooo me to pretty please with sugar on top?

[Guest Bro David™]

I have so many toy models in my houes I could start a store.

Not the cheap ones either, even the Models are made by B.M.W : LOL

So who wants what ?

Last ORDER closes at 12:oo pm Eastern

And err, Trinity my beloved poster and Fav Brother, what sugar ? you mean white paint ? Deluxe or all Weather ..LOL

[truthnluv]

Actually I don't see that the sins of unbelievers have been atoned for, so this assertion means nothing to me. I would say of course God will punish them, because the atonement only applies to the elect. So this doesn't prove anything to me. If you can show me at the judgement where God will punish the sins of the elect, I might have an issue.

Edited May 28, 2005 by truthnluv

[Guest Bro David™]

Picture:

[truthnluv]

I would define God's justice as His always doing what is right. And He Himself is the standard of what is right. His always doing what He said He would do is His faithfulness.

Yes, God is the standard of what is right. So, whatever He says is right. Hence, when God does what He says it is right... That is justice. We're in agreement we just expressed it in different words.

Actually Peter does not include himself here. The personal pronoun that is used, "umas" in the accusative and is the second person plural of umeis. It means "you" (plural) If he had wanted to include himself he would have used "emas" or we.

There is a textual variant that indicates emas, but it is not well attested.

Edited May 28, 2005 by truthnluv

[Trinity]

[quote name='Bro David

[EricH]

Actually I don't see that the sins of unbelievers have been atoned for, so this assertion means nothing to me. I would say of course God will punish them, because the atonement only applies to the elect. So this doesn't prove anything to me. If you can show me at the judgement where God will punish the sins of the elect, I might have an issue.

[EricH]

The reason the King James chose the variant that they did, is that they made a poor text critical decision. I don't think it was theologically motivated They went with a poorly attested variant (it may have been all they had available at the time, I don't know for sure) that most scholars now say was incorrect. You may see an elipses here based on the context, but most of the translators do not, and none of the commentators I read did as well. I wasn't saying Peter was addressing the elect as part of the world, I said he used the world as part of his argument to the elect. Something writers of scripture do all the time.

I asked you before for a theology that relects where you stand. You never did get me one. I am looking at the Hermenuetics guy you recommended, but would really like to see thologians who agree with you. Are there any I could read?

Actually we disagree over the nature of what God said He would do (the justice thing). You see physical death as the sentence in Genesis. So, because you see that as the sentence, and because you have defined God's justice the way you have, you are forced to find a mitigating circumstance to explain why God did not do what He said, and why He did not tell Adam and Eve He had changed the rules so quickly. Therefore you have to force your NT theology back over the Genesis account, even though it is not mentioned in the context (that the mercy from the cross allowed God not to take Adam and Eve's life instantly), and not taught later in the NT (It is taught that sins in the OT were forgiven based on the cross, but not that common grace was generated from the same).

You are also forced to ignore the weight of the numerous passages that seem to indicate grace and mercy are qualities that belong to the character of God.

I think it is much better to let death be defined by what God actually did in Eden, after Adam and Eve sinned. He removed Adam and Eve from His presence(separation or spiritual death), so the sustaining power of God was removed. Thus they were now subject to decay and physical death as a by-product of the spiritual death they had just undergone. There is nothing in the context of the original account that tells us God has done something other than what He said He would do. Man was separated from God, and physical death is a symptom of that.

See my earlier post on this.

I will answer your question on God and sin in the OT later. I want to do some study before I speak to quickly.

[truthnluv]

I asked you before for a theology that relects where you stand. You never did get me one. I am looking at the Hermenuetics guy you recommended, but would really like to see thologians who agree with you. Are there any I could read?

Theologians that agree with me on unlimited atonement? Or you mean in general? In general, I'm basically fundamental evangelical dispensational. But even among that group some of my perspectives are only held by a small remnant... Every now and then I run across a like-mind.

Actually we disagree over the nature of what God said He would do (the justice thing). You see physical death as the sentence in Genesis.

What makes you think I believe that? I believe the punishment for sin has always been eternal death/separation from God. I said, precisely, that Adam was delivered from the judgement of eternal death that he brought upon himself... This was mercy based on the Cross.

You are also forced to ignore the weight of the numerous passages that seem to indicate grace and mercy are qualities that belong to the character of God.

In your opinion, how could God be just and withhold judgement at the same time apart from the Sacrifice of the Cross?

I think it is much better to let death be defined by what God actually did in Eden, after Adam and Eve sinned. He removed Adam and Eve from His presence(separation or spiritual death),

So, you believe Adam and Eve are in hell right now suffering eternal separation from God? If not, then they did not suffer the punishment of eternal death as God said they would.

I will answer your question on God and sin in the OT later. I want to do some study before I speak to quickly.

Ok. What study tools do you use?

Truthnluv

Edited May 30, 2005 by truthnluv