Thursday, July 2, 2009

Unlimited/Limited Atonement

Unlimited/Limited Atonement

1 Timothy 4:10 (English Standard Version)



10For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.


Chrysostom (349-407) on Hebrews 9:28. "So
Christ was once offered.": By whom offered? evidently by Himself. Here
he says that He is not Priest only, but Victim also, and what is
sacrificed. On this account are [the words] "was offered." "Was once
offered" (he says) "to bear the sins of many." Why "of many," and not
"of all"? Because not all believed, For He died indeed for all, that is
His part: for that death was a counterbalance against the destruction
of all men
. But He did not bear the sins of all men, because they were
not willing. NPNF1: Vol. XIV, Epistle to the Hebrews, Homly 17.


This is not a contradiction in terms, it is a proposition that fits into God's redemptive plan - that is:

1) Christ's death was of general benefit to all Mankind, in that the guarantee of His sacrifice was the source of our just God extending grace to Adam and not immediately and utterly destroying Man at the Fall or allowing Man, in his own total depravity and slavery to sin, destroy himself- thus Unlimited in application in that sense. "who is the Savior of all people"

2) Christ's death was of specific benefit to the Elect, in whom He, by His grace, has given the gift of faith through the Holy Spirit, resulting in true spiritual and saving belief in Christ. "especially of those who believe"

5 comments:

  1. Michael stated: "The Catholic Church is the Pillar and the Foundation of Truth (1 Timothy 3:15)"

    Response: Nice INSERTION, but we don't buy it here. Care to compare the Greek and see if "Catholic" is included?

    Michael stated (repeatedly): "The Catholic Church is still here."

    Response: So is the Church of the Latter Day Saints, the Muslim, the Buddhists, ... but that neither means they hold to pure doctrine or to the true gospel!

    Michael stated: "The Protestants tried to destroy it in the reformation and failed..."

    Response: (Unsubstantiated Claim) How did it fail?

    Michael stated: "The Church of Protestantism, which Luther founded ..."

    Response: Just because "protests" (against corruption and false doctrine) were raised (from which "Protentantism" gets it's name) does NOT mean the gospel Protestants uphold is not from God, is not biblical, and was not present and widely communicated before Luther. (i.e., Hus, Wycliffe, Augustine, Paul, Jesus, even God himself in the protoevangelion of Genesis 3:15)

    Michael stated: "...was from the very beginning cracked and splintered. Look at Protestantism today, over 36,400 splinters, with more cropping up every day."

    Response: No one denies differences and even divisions, but that's different than denying the full sufficiency and provision found in Christ.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Michael stated: Remember, if you fight against GOD's Church, you fight against GOD Himself... "

    Response: Before speaking so brazenly, you might consider the mention (name, characterization) given to those in Rev 3:9 who were described as belonging to the "synagogue of Satan" who also sought to claim for themselves the title of being the "true" church, though they failed to look to and trust in Jesus as the prophesied Messiah (who as God would accomplish salvation for man). Note, while my intention here is not to label the Roman Catholic church as a whole with this title, for there may certainly be true believers in her midst, at the same time, I believe you should consider the fact that God took special note of others who have gone before you who in claiming a similar title for themselves (while trying to deny the honor to those who were looking solely to Christ and the full sufficiency of his atonement) were denounced by God even as they sought to set themselves high among men. Surely, you would not want to be counted among such opposers, would you?

    ReplyDelete
  3. swordbearer said...
    "The Protestants tried to destroy it in the reformation and failed..."

    Response: (Unsubstantiated Claim) How did it fail
    ?

    Dear Swordbearer,
    More correctly, it is called "The Protestant Revolt" since it did not "Reform" anything.

    "Unless the Lord build the house, they labor in vain who build it." (Psalms 127:1)

    Surely, the reformers had to have been aware of this verse. Why then, did they all ignore it?

    The very founder of the "Reformation", Martin Luther, was the "regrettable" one, as he surveyed the damage that his rebellion against authority had caused.

    His writings show that he lamented his deed when he penned the following remarks...

    "This one will not hear of Baptism, and that one denies the sacrament, another puts a world between this and the last day: some teach that Christ is not God, some say this, some say that: there are as many sects and creeds as there are heads.

    No yokel is so rude but when he has dreams and fancies, he thinks himself inspired by the Holy Ghost and must be a prophet.
    "
    De Wette III, 61. quoted in O'Hare, THE FACTS ABOUT LUTHER, 208.

    "Noblemen, townsmen, peasants, all classes understand the Evangelium better than I or St. Paul; they are now wise and think themselves more learned than all the ministers."
    Walch XIV, 1360. quoted in O'Hare, Ibid, 209.

    "We concede -- as we must -- that so much of what they (the Catholic Church) say is true: that the papacy has God's word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received Holy Scriptures, Baptism, the Sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them?
    Sermon on the gospel of St. John, chaps. 14 - 16 (1537), in vol. 24 of LUTHER'S WORKS,
    St. Louis, Mo.: Concordia, 1961, 304.

    All of this and much more was written by the founder of the Reformation, just a short time after, when he noted the chaos he had created.

    By this time, Munzer had run in this direction (in 1521, the same year that Luther broke away), Zwingli, had run in that direction, Calvin in yet another direction, all of them scattering the sheep and taking their flocks with them.

    Luther had let the cat out of the bag and he was helpless to put it back in. He had started something that he was powerless to stop.
    Regretful, he certainly was as:

    "Once you open the door to error, you cannot close it."

    How true! Luther had become the victim by not heeding the consequences of this simple proverb.

    "Unless the Lord build the house, they labor in vain who build it." (Psalms 127:1)

    ReplyDelete
  4. 3. As far as the “rebellion” and the “splintering” you refer to, this is explained easily when one understands church history as the impurities and abuses of the church were many, and hence while many recognized that cleansing and reform need to come, this meant a a variety of things to different people, and so when the movement of reform came, it’s not unusual that we find different expressions and even different degrees of expression as well as different thoughts and practices in regard to the solution(s) and the forms it should take, and this even more when you consider a movement even among the peasants who had been for such a time controlled by those who were corrupt and abusive in power.j

    Because Man’s Tradition doesn’t hold the authority of God’s Word, it doesn’t serve those well who ultimate rely on it. It does one good to examine church traditions in light of God’s Word and be courageous enough change.

    4. Finally, as you seem so quick to imply that you possess wisdom as to how “GOD” was at work in building his house (though your position fails to recognize how error and abuses were even present much less corrected , taking into account the authority, light, and comparison of God’s Word), let me point out another verse that applies especially when it comes to division, for that seems to be a subject you are caught up on:

    Luke 12:51 ‘Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division.”

    The truth is that division does not always demonstrate that one is departing from God, but at times, especially those when the very gospel itself is at stake, reveals the difference between those who hold and attest to the gospel of his Son and those who do not. I seriously believe you should give this due consideration and then review church history more in depth.

    Because Man’s Tradition doesn’t hold the authority of God’s Word, it doesn’t serve those well who ultimate rely on it. It does one good to examine church traditions in light of God’s Word and be courageous enough change.

    5. I’ll address your statements of Luther again as I have time, but suffice it to say that:
    a. While the differences among those involved in the reformation are explained above, certainly central to the movement was the perseveration and proclamation of the true gospel which was being corrupted by the Catholic church.
    b. The very facts you point out of Luther’s efforts of educating and encouraging the masses at reform to be controlled and not give way to those things associated with what is common with “revolts” actually refutes your own point, and demonstrates it was an effort at reform and not revolt!

    Because Man’s Tradition doesn’t hold the authority of God’s Word, it doesn’t serve those well who ultimate rely on it. It does one good to examine church traditions in light of God’s Word and be courageous enough change.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Michael,

    Wow...another example of how you not only refuse to look to the Scripture in regard to the issues under discussion, but fail to deal with the issues, refute the arguments, and then "bait and switch" to the warnings found in Scripture (while failing to deal with the issue of what "truth" is ... and the source by which we know it) and then show immaturity by adding your little flaming symbols. Let the readers decide not only between the methods used, but also on which side truth is found. You've not only bought into a lie but you're running around selling hype and heresy like the snake oil salesmen of old, but like them I imagine (from you statement "... I leave you with...") you'll be moving on soon as your hoax has been uncovered and you can't defend what you say.

    ReplyDelete

Why I believe in baptizing babies (condensed version)

I grew up with the traditional Baptist view, typically referred to as " believers baptism ". It is theologically known as credobap...