Limited Atonement - is it Biblical?

[EricH]

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Steve,

I wasn't going to respond to this, because I was not sure if you were joking. But as I read your response to smiles it seemed to me that you were not.

I was hurt by what you said. What I heard from this is that you have a low esteem for those in Pastoral ministry. It basically accuses pastors of intentionally complicating the Bible. Let me encourage you with a verse:

But we request of you, brethren, that you appreciate those who diligently labor among you, and have charge over you in the Lord and give you instruction, and that you esteem them very highly in love because of their work. Live in peace with one another.

1 Thess. 5:12-13 NASB

Let me assure you that I am not in Pastoral ministry to have my ego stroked. I actually left a 6 figure job in corporate America to enter the ministry. My intesnse study of the scriptures is not being done to puff my self up, but to ensure that I am accurately handling the word of truth.

There are two types of pride based on knowledge. The one says I am great because I know so much, the other says I am wonderful because I am so simple.

Truthnluv and I may disagree on some points, but I respect him because he has taken the time to develop a theology that he derived from studying the text and is not internally self-contradicting. I hope he respects me as well. Some of the concepts may be complicated, but I think they are worth struggling through and taking about.

If you were joking, or I misunderstood your motives, please disregard this post. It is not my intent to hurt or accuse you. I just felt I owed it to you to let you know how your statement impacted me.

[truthnluv]

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?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi, pastoreric. I caugth your question, but I didn't have time to respond. Sorry about that. I'm enjoying our discussion too.

Truthnluv

[truthnluv]

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?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would recommend Hermeneutics: Princibles and Processes of Biblical Interpretation by Henry A. Virkler.

There are many theologians who use the grammatical-historical, lexical-syntactical methods, but not all align their exegetical methods with their theory. In other words, they don't always follow their own rules.

In theory Augustine outlined many of the princibles of sound exegesis, but in practice he tended towards heavy allegorization.

Luther rejected the the allegorical method and stated that a proper understanding of scripture must come from a literal interpretation of the text. He held that one must consider historical conditions, grammer, and context. However, he did have a tendency to see Christ in many places in the Old Testament where nobody else did. This was an attempt to apply the Old Testament to the Church... He was trained in a Catholic Jesuit seminary, so go figure. Catholics do the same thing.

Calvin is considered by many the greatest exegete of the Reformation period. Him and Luther were pretty much on the same page. He believed the allegorical method was a contrivance of satan to obscure scriptures true meaning. He placed emphasis on studying the context, grammer, words, and parallel passages, as opposed to reading one's own preunderstanding into the text. "Let the author say what he does say, not what we think he ought to say", to quote him loosely.

The princibles articulated by these men became the major guiding post for modern orthodox protestant interpretation and there writings(along with many others) have influenced my understaning of proper interpretation. Basically, I just read alot and I try to glean a little truth here and there as much as possible.

Limited atonement is primarily a Calvinist doctrine. Most other Christians believe that Christ paid for everyone's sins.

Dispensationalist believe that there is a distinction between the Church and Isreal. This is taught by Dallas Seminary, Grace Theological Seminary, Moody Bible College, etc. Scofield and Ryrie, who both have study bibles, adhere to Dispensational Theology. The Bible Knowledge Commentary set is Dispensational. Etc.

However, most Dispensational theologians totally ignore their own princibles when it comes to the Gospels. I guess because Jesus is talking they feel like it just has to apply to them too. But it doesn't.

I wouldn't necessarily say that the King James is the only Bible that can be trusted. Why would you think that and what version do you use?

Truthnluv

Edited May 22, 2005 by truthnluv

[stevehut]

1- I was hurt by what you said. What I heard from this is that you have a low esteem for those in Pastoral ministry.

2- If you were joking, or I misunderstood your motives, please disregard this post.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1- It takes one to know one, Eric. As one who serves in ministry, I know how hard it is to get through to people sometimes. This sometimes leads to cutting corners, in the belief that the end justifies the means, as long as the person comes to faith in Christ. But I have myself hurt many people this way. And it's wrong.

2- Nope. I don't joke about stuff like this.

[truthnluv]

However, sinners do get some benefits.

Edited May 22, 2005 by truthnluv

[stevehut]

Not sure I understand, truth. Does that mean everyone is saved?

[truthnluv]

Not sure I understand, truth.    Does that mean everyone is saved?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Everyone is not saved from the penalty of sin, which is eternal death. But everyone in the world recieves grace and mercy because of the Cross.

Truthnluv

[book_wirm]

truthnluv,

Let me first say I'm really enjoying this thread. If nothing else it has caused me to ask why I believe certain things rather than just believing them, ignorant of intelligent reason. I was wondering if you could give me some clarification regarding some of your beliefs.

I'll admit, the scriptures seem plain in saying that Grace and Mercy are in fact attributes of God and that the cross was the end result of them rather than the other way around...but perhaps that's the thing making this whole discussion somewhat difficult. If the cross made possible grace and mercy then yes, it follows that there was a benefit in it even for the unsaved. If, however, Grace and Mercy are attributes of God prior to or seperate from the cross then it becomes a thing somewhat different.

Could you perhaps, then, enlighten me as to exactly what causes you to believe that the cross made grace and mercy possible as opposed to them being attributes of God?

In Christ,

Eric

[EricH]

1- I was hurt by what you said. What I heard from this is that you have a low esteem for those in Pastoral ministry.

2- If you were joking, or I misunderstood your motives, please disregard this post.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1- It takes one to know one, Eric. As one who serves in ministry, I know how hard it is to get through to people sometimes. This sometimes leads to cutting corners, in the belief that the end justifies the means, as long as the person comes to faith in Christ. But I have myself hurt many people this way. And it's wrong.

2- Nope. I don't joke about stuff like this.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I guess you missed my point

[EricH]

Truthnluv,

Still waiting for the references regarding works I could read. Oops, disregard, I missed your earlier post. Thanks!