Sorry, DD, Sophistry is never safe, either when used in Scholasticism or in the Hyper Calvinist context.
We take Scripture as a whole and at face value without the use of it.
Some understand this as a double standard as you imply, yet you fail to perceive that Scripture brings *both ends* on record. It is not safe to ignore one, or try to explain it without the other.
Frankly, in our case, simply we allow God to be God, and we do not put him in the trial box, neither go about to explain his doings which are "pass finding out".
Hypercalvinists believe themselves to be wiser than God at times having to explain all about his doings, eventually distorting his impeccable nature. Of course such are common traits of hypercalvinists practice, often accusing, distorting meaning and maligning those differing from their stiff predicament, yet believing themselves to be perfectly 'normal' Calvinists, but failing to realise their extreme position.
No intend to offend, but your inferred accusasions are out of hand.
Darren Thomas wrote: Lies and truth are not two wings of Scripture, nor is your yea and nay gospel, nor is your god who can't seem to make his mind up who he wants to save, if any.
See these two texts. 1."The bread of God is he which comes down from heaven, and gives life unto the world"
2."My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life"
Both are true though they seem not to match meaning. One says Christ gives life to the world, and the other that he gives life to his sheep. How do you square them is your problem.
No issue in beleiving that Christ died for his own and gives them eternal life, but people like you and lbug, hypercalvinists, dishonour God's name by arriving to twisted horrible conclusions of your deductive humanistic reasoning, diminishing his person.
Sorry, but this is hard to passivily entertain.
Besides, out of tired forbearance with you both, may we bring to remembrance James 3, "the tongue ... an unruly evil, ... Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God ... My brethren, these things ought not so to be"
Correct error as much as you wish, yet show works of righteousness by godly conduct also.
Adriel wrote: r What on earth are you talking about? The discussion was about the 'extent' which the term 'world' was being used to cover namely ALL or a Part thereof. Separating one nation (Jews) from all other nations tells us that the use of 'world' did not include everybody on the planet, The syntax of the parallelisms ?
Sorry you are not familiar with syntax or parallelisms.
Darren You have gone too far in your last post misrepresenting John.
Adriel wrote: Rom 11:12 " Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?
The term 'world' here cannot mean "ALL"...
Cont. All the Gentiles positionally entered into a better light by the diminishing of national Israel, be them saved or not.
To better understand this, the fact may be illustrated by considering how citizens of a particular free country may by their inclusion in that particular state enjoy the privileges it brings. Yet they might not actually, as it is to the individual to use them by entitlement, use or practice, with no guarantee they might have them.
See also the term world here, in a general mode, not meaning each one but all in the group having in common the same traits, inclinations or characteristics.
Jhn 15:19 - "If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hates you."
Just figuring out the sense of Scripture here and there. Regards
Adriel wrote: Rom 11:1 " Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?
The term 'world' here cannot mean "ALL" since it separates rhe Jews and Gentiles. Thus 'world' is not necessarily used as inclusive of everybody in the NT
Such an enriching text, Adriel, but actually it stands for the opposite of what you take.
In its syntax it is made actually of two mutually reinforcing general parallelisms, bringing the 'riches of the world', against the 'riches of the gentiles'.
That these two concepts are general comes evident by the fact that the Gentiles are mentioned in general, if not Paul would had detailed which group of the Gentiles he had in mind. So all the Gentiles are enriched by the Jews's exclusion.
Obviously, the term 'world' again is general in 1Jo 4:4-5 also, See, "Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world. They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world hears them."
All the world stands against the Christian as Christ made clear," the world loves his own"
NeedHim wrote: The value of the atonement depends upon, & is measured by, the dignity of the person making it; & since Christ suffered as a Divine-human person the value of His suffering was infinite. The Scripture writers tell us plainly that the â€śLord of gloryâ€ť was crucified, I Cor. 2:8; that wicked men â€śkilled the Prince of life,â€ť Acts 3:15; & that God â€śpurchasedâ€ť the Church â€świth His own blood,â€ť Acts 20:28. The atonement, therefore, was infinitely meritorious & might have saved every member of the human race, had that been Godâ€™s plan.
"For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?"
Adriel wrote: Election is Limited by God alone. Therefore God alone will Limit Atonement appropriately.
With this in mind some imply a limited atonement that justifies only every sin the elect have committed.
Yet, the concept of remission of sin involves far more because, "he appeared *to put away sin* by the sacrifice of himself " so that "the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus" would set us "free from the law of sin and death" unto life.
Redemption is a free given transforming life, not merely freedom of penalisation for sin. So man made limits may become finite if not clumsy.
"In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began"
"... to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world has been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ"
The main wrong with the so called 'limited atonement' is not the start, but the ultimate reasonings people bring the notion to, which can often borther insult to God by the horrible conclusions made, for what we would do well to keep our mouths shut from.
The other main wrong is the misrepresentation of the opposite camp, charging such with many untruths not generally sustained, as for instance universal salvation, or the acceptance of free will at the expense of denying grace or election.
The *whosoevers* of Scripture, as much as the free offer of the gospel we read about, leave room for the 'potential' in our understanding, but not in God's, as he only knows those that should be saved.
Hence, putting God in a straight jacket of our puny conclusions manages often to distort his character.
Redemption as light, is an infinite work of grace filling all it takes, yet limited into a room by the existing opening to it.
"the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that hears say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely."
English Lad wrote: 1. Where does the bible ever say that Christ represented the whole of humanity? ... he represented only the people that the Father gave him.
2. A god who provides for people already in hell is not magnanimous
3. DD wrote Christ's sacrifice was "sufficient for all mankind" by leaving the final choice in the hands of man bring no glory to Christ
1. Where do you find that Christ as the last Adam represented only his people? This is a private deduction.
" ... as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." The potential is there
" if one died for all, then were all dead: And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again." Though dead as the rest, those to whom the blood is applied will live unto him.
" it is the blood that makes an atonement for the soul." Again those to whom the blood is applied receive the imputation of the sacrifice.
2. This is your distortion. No one states this. There is much distortion of facts in both camps. Taken all away, truth would flourish aright.
3. Sorry you are mixing two errors, free will and universal redemption. No one is advocating them.
LD No insult in stating the obvious, or describing real patterns of conduct observed. This is not a fault, it is the use of freedom of speech.
DD We believe in all the doctrines of God revealed in Scripture, however it happens that we do not play at squaring a god of our imagination in the small box of our limited understanding.
Let's be mindful that we do not squeeze God in the shape of our faulty deductive reasoning schemes, which are the foundational ground of all the sophistry so prevalent in the scholasticism of the dark ages.
Is it the fear of making 'god' *a failure* that makes some come in his rescue to humanisticly explain every facet of his doings? Sorry, such is not our practice or intention. Our God is greater and he does as he pleases in all his works without explaining himself. Are we criticising his magnanimous character to the reduce it to the size of a puny mythological identity, or whim?
Halo, lad, Just a short comment, All the verses people use to defend limited or particular atonement deal with the *application* of the atonement, but they do not necessarily deal with its value per se, or extend, which is what needs to be proved from Scripture. Deductive reasoning is the gadget used to make such verses conclude what it is set to prove, which verses do not prove by primary content.
On the other hand, universal atonement is confused as meaning salvation for all, which is not what is meant by it. Rather we defend the value and extend of the atonment as one of the *infinite* traits of God in all he does.
"I know that, whatsoever God does, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God does it, that men should fear before him."
"Then I beheld all the work of God, that a man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun: because though a man labour to seek it out, yet he shall not find it; yea further; though a wise man think to know it, yet shall he not be able to find it."
Ecc.3:14 & 8:17
"O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding ou
Some things never change in this forum, in fact they come in predictable cycles of practice and behaviour.
Such are, the entrenching into groups of shut-minded buddy condescension, the mushroom-like turned up of new monikers under cover, the mantra of pride, the dismantling of texts to accommodate a fixed position, and the adhominem propaganda when arguments cannot be refuted.
There is a hint of "Leave them alone" in Scripture
All, meaning all, or any of all kind still means the provision is there for all kinds, so the same concept stands.
Again this is true of another facet of the redemption plan, the reconciliation,
"God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, *not imputing their trespasses unto them*; and has committed unto us the word of reconciliation."
The plan of reconciliation brought the possible provision of justification for all as stated above, or for all kinds of men, but surely not all enjoy the privilege of being excepted from their personal guilt after being such opportunity presented to them.
"Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God."
Again the same works regarding personal accountability in judgement,
"Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind."
Either group will be judged because of their accountability according to their circumstance, which implies they have been exposed to a general knowledge, with a different response.
Darren Thomas wrote: Israel in the OT represents at best the visible church, separated from the world, with God in the midst guarding and observing God's appointed ordinances. How does that help your case for an atonement for every person who has ever lived when the majority of the then existing world was outside of this visible community? Hmmm....
Sorry, but your question is obsolete because it falls out of biblical context and out of the blue print of Scripture.
God was reveling his plan of redemption in types through the nation of Israel and in this case, revealing the broad work of the cross through the national day of atonement.
Another type along the same is the lifting up of the serpent in the desert.
"... as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life."
Obviously, the offer was there for all to take advantage off, but the application was not automatic for all, neither general.
Here is another text to consider, " if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me." Christ states that the fruit of his resurrection would make possible to draw all unto him, yet it is a fact that not all are.
John UK wrote: Mine own thinking was greatly helped by studying atonement in the OT, and especially Yom Kippur - The Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16). The whole day was devoted to providing the whole group of people with a blood atonement. This was for everybody, but not everybody had faith in it, so the atonement did not avail for them. But it was there FOR them. There was no lack in what God told them to do.
Darren, Substitutionary atonement is the facet speaking of the application of the atonement, not the extend of the atonement. At the Passover, by the death of the lamb the believing soul was justified .
John UK wrote: Personally, I think the expression 'limited atonement' is misleading and inadequate. Whereas the phrase 'particular redemption' says it all.
But you find some using the term 'particular' still believe in *limiting*, say curtailing the atonement, as if God was not eternal in all His attributes, works, purpose and nature.
Darren, The use sophistry is never commendable, and this is what is used when you state that if Christ died for all, all should be saved. Remember the parable when the hiring man stated, can I not do what is right with my own things? What if I wish to be generous and sovereign with what I have?
"Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good?"
So, what is to us to put God into our personal reasoning box?
John UK wrote: 1. "Again let me remind you that the Scriptures plainly teach us that the atonement of our Lord Jesus Christ has a universal bearing; and it seems to me that those who limit the value of the atonement do most seriously err from the faith. I believe the sacrifice of Jesus Christ was so infinite that, if there had been ten thousand worlds full of sinners to have been redeemed, it was amply sufficient to have redeemed them all." CHS
"When we are giving the invitations of the gospel that we find in the Scriptures, we never think of limiting them. Though we believe the special purpose of Christâ€™s atonement was the redemption of his Church, yet we know that his sacrifice was infinite in value, and therefore we set the wicket gate as wide open as we can, and we repeat Christâ€™s own invitation, 'Whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.' " CHS
2. Darren Thomas " the value of the atonement ..."
1. "... we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world."
However, only to those that "received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God"
2. "... the Lamb of God, ... takes away the sin of the world."