Limited Atonement - is it Biblical?

[EricH]

Could you provide a clear definition of how you are using the following words:

1. Atonement

2. Salvation - as it applies to being saved from death

What is the cause and scope of each?

I know you mentioned that you took 1 class in hermenuetics. Could you provide an author that I could read that would represent your hermeneutic? Also is there a theologiqn I could read that would agree with you in terms of your views that the atonment and redemption extend to everyone and that the OT, and most of the gospels are not for the church? I am interested in doing more reading on this perspective. Lastly, am I safe in assuming you believe that the King James is the best version and the only one that can be trusted?

[EricH]

Actually 1 Timothy 4:10 appears to be a habraism. (I don't know why I forgot this). It was very common in the Hebrew language for the teacher to state generalities then provide exceptions. So for instance in 1 Cor 10:14-16

I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius that no man should say you that no man should say you were baptized in my name now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other.

1 Timothy 4:10 is simular. Christ is the Savior of the word, especially of believers. That is the exception. It is a common hebraism. It is another way (for effect) of saying he died for believers only (it was only effective for them). The text is really stressing the effectiveness of Christ's Salvation. It is for believers only. To say anything else (to assume it has limited effect for unbelievers) is reading one's theology onto the text.

Also, I am a little bit confused in that you earlier, in another forum said that all were redeemed, but not all were saved. Now it appears you are using soter (the word for saved) as an equivalent for the atonement.

[stevehut]

Leave it to a preacher to make the Bible so complicated...

[mrs]

Leave it to a preacher to make the Bible so complicated...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

umm..deep theology IS complicated.

[stevehut]

umm..deep theology IS complicated.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yup.

But sometimes the Bible isn't.

[mrs]

umm..deep theology IS complicated.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yup.

But sometimes the Bible isn't.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is both. So deep a theologian drowns trying to find the bottom, yet so shallow a child can wade in it.

[truthnluv]

Mercy and grace are not attributes of God?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Right. The Bible clearly teaches that the means by which God can remain Just and still extend mercy and grace, is by the sacrifice of His Son on the Cross. You can read Romans for more details.

Truthnluv

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Where is it clearly taught that mercy and grace are not attributes of God? What I mean by this is in the numersous text that talk of the mercy of God and the grace f God, I see not indication that htese were not attributes before the the cross. All I see is that the cross was the agency through which He expressed these attributes fully to men

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It seems that we're not so much in disagreement about this. I believe that mercy and grace are results of the Cross and you kinda believe that. That's fine.

Truthnluv

Edited May 21, 2005 by truthnluv

[truthnluv]

Deliverance need not be a reference to eternal salvation.

Edited May 21, 2005 by truthnluv

[EricH]

Trutynluv,

I am really enjoying our discussions. I am learning alot and it is causing me to think. Did you catch my question about some books that agree with your theology and hermeneutic that I could read further on?

[EricH]

Deliverance need not be a reference to eternal salvation.