• **Notifications**: Notifications can be dismissed by clicking on the "x" on the righthand side of the notice.
  • **New Style**: You can now change style options. Click on the paintbrush at the bottom of this page.
  • **Donations**: If the Lord leads you please consider helping with monthly costs and up keep on our Forum. Click on the Donate link In the top menu bar. Thanks
  • **New Blog section**: There is now a blog section. Check it out near the Private Debates forum or click on the Blog link in the top menu bar.
  • Welcome Visitors! Join us and be blessed while fellowshipping and celebrating our Glorious Salvation In Christ Jesus.

Definite Atonement

That’s how I answer that….
Interesting read-is this by Alford-or Henry Alford?

48. τεταγμένοι] The meaning of this word must be determined by the context. The Jews had judged themselves unworthy of eternal life: the Gentiles, as many as were disposed to eternal life, believed. By whom so disposed, is not here declared: nor need the word be in this place further particularized.

We know, that it is GOD who worketh in us the will to believe, and that the preparation of the heart is of Him: but to find in this text pre-ordination to life asserted, is to force both the word and the context to a meaning which they do not contain.


The key to the word here is the comparison of ref. 1 Cor. εἰς διακονίαν τοῖς ἁγίοις ἔταξαν ἑαυτούς, with ref. Rom. αἱ οὖσαι (ἐξουσίαι) ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ τεταγμέναι εἰσίν: in both of which places the agents are expressed, whereas here the word is absolute. See also ch. Act_20:13. The principal interpretations are: (1) Calvin, &c., who find here predestination in the strongest sense: ‘orainatio ista nonnisi ad æternum Dei consilium potest referri’ … ‘ridiculum autem cavillum est referre hoc ad credentium affectum, quasi Evangelium receperint qui animis rite dispositi erant.’ So the Vulgate, ‘præordinati:’ and Aug[74] ‘destinati: (2) ‘Qui juxta ordinem a Deo institutum dispositi erant’ (Franz, Calov.: but not Bengel (as De W.), who explains it as I have done above): (3) ‘Quibus, dum fidem doctrinæ habebant, certa erat vita beata’ (Morus, Kuinoel): (4) ‘Qui ad vitam æternam se ordinarant’ (Grot., Limborch, Wolf, al.): (5) ‘Quotquot erant dispositi, applicati, i.e. apti facti oratione Pauli ad vitam æt. adipiscendam’ (Bretschneider): (6) taking τετ. militari sensu, ‘Qui de agmine et classe erant sperantium vel contendentium ad v. æ.’ (Mede, and similarly Schöttg.)

There are several other renderings, but so forced as to be mere caricatures of exegesis: see Meyer.
It may be worth while to protest against all attempts to join ἐπίστευσαν with εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον, which usage will not bear. Wordsworth well observes that it would be interesting to enquire what influence such renderings as this of præordinati in the Vulgate version had on the minds of men like St. Augustine and his followers in the Western Church in treating the great questions of free will, election, reprobation, and final perseverance: and on some writers in the reformed churches who, though rejecting the authority of that version, were yet swayed by it away from the sense of the original here and in ch. Act_2:47.

The tendency of the Eastern Fathers, who read the original Greek, was, he remarks, in a different direction from that of the Western School.
[74] Augustine, Bp. of Hippo, 395–430
Alford.

Johann.
 
Only God knows who are called and I digress-one can choose to submit to God and our Lord and great God and savior, Christ Jesus and have full assurance at present re their eternal life and salvation eis Jesus.
Might get me into hot water-but this is how I believe.
Have you considered 1 Co 2:14, Jn 3:3-5, Ro 8:7-8?
The only task we have is to promulgate the good news to a lost and dying world and.

1Co 2:2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.


For I determined not to know anything among you (ou gar ekrina ti eidenai en humin). Literally, “For I did not decide to know anything among you.” The negative goes with ekrina, not with ti. Paul means that he did not think it fit or his business to know anything for his message beyond this “mystery of God.”

Save Jesus Christ (ei mē Iēsoun Christon). Both the person and the office (Lightfoot). I had no intent to go beyond him and in particular, and him crucified (kai touton estaurōmenon). Literally, and this one as crucified (perfect passive participle).

This phase in particular (1Co_1:18) was selected by Paul from the start as the centre of his gospel message. He decided to stick to it even after Athens where he was practically laughed out of court. The Cross added to the scandalon of the Incarnation, but Paul kept to the main track on coming to Corinth.
RWP.

J.
 
#1 The Moral Influence Theory
#2 The Ransom Theory
#3 Christus Victor
#4 The Satisfaction Theory (Anselm)
#5 The Penal Substitutionary Theory
#6 The Governmental Theory
#7 The Scapegoat Theory
Conclusions
Each theory presented here is dense and complex, but I hope you can learn from the overall focus of each. I personally believe that we need to move beyond some of these theories and progress into a more robust theory of atonement. But thankfully, at the end of the day, we aren’t saved by theories. We’re saved by Jesus! How that happens may be fun to discuss and theorized about, but only in the sight of the fact that it’s the who that matters far more!

What do you think of all these theories? Does a certain one appeal to you more than the rest? Let me know in a comment!

Recommended reading
The following books are some of the best studies on the atonement I know and recommend for further reading:

Atonement, Justice, and Peace by Darrin W. Snyder Belousek (the best argument against penal substitution I’ve read)

The Crucifixion by Fleming Rutledge (excellent study on the cross for today’s world)

Christus Victor by Gustaf Aulén (a classic study of traditional atonement models)

Atonement: Person and Work of Christ by Thomas F. Torrance (great study by the renowned 20th-century theologian)

The Nature of the Atonement by John McLeod Campbell (difficult reading, but historically an important text)

On the Incarnation by Athanasius (don’t let the title fool you: this is a profound text for the atonement in the early church)

Curs Deus Homo: Why God Became Man by Anselm (classic for the “satisfaction” atonement theory)

Against Heresies by Ireneaus (a great example of the atonement in the early church)

Things Hidden Since the Foundations of the World by Rene Girard (for the scapegoat theory)

The Crucified God by Jürgen Moltmann (one of the best modern works on the atonement)

Church Dogmatics IV/1 by Karl Barth (another modern classic on the atonement, famous for Barth’s notion of the “Judge judged in our place”)

The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views (a decent collection of essays to give you a feel for various atonement theories)


J.
I get the impression you are in agreement with PSA, and Christ enduring the Fathers wrath in our place?
 
Indicative there is free will.
No one is arguing that men have a will and that they exercise it. They always do what they most desire to do. The question is---though it really ought to be in the topic of free will or a thread that is directed at free will----whether or not unregenerate man ever has the desire that overrides all other desires, to give up his sinful pleasures all the time, and come under the Kingship of God? To bring that back into the thread topic of definite atonement, put forth a case for against definite atonement, depending what you view of my above statement is, and how that would affect definite atonement.
Before I answer-there are members with various stages in their growth in Christ Jesus-various characteristics and temperaments-have YOU reached the stage where you have nothing more to learn from the Scriptures-that you are able and capable to exegete-with confidence-everything that stands written?
The answer is of course not and I would assume you have the same attitude towards yourself.
An aside-I am not baptized into Calvin-Sorella.
Neither am I. I am baptised into Christ.
1Pe 3:15 But separate, Give Him His right place, the Christ as Lord in your hearts: and be ready always for an answer to every man that asketh you an account concerning the hope that is in you with humility and fear:
1Pe 3:16 Having a good conscience; in order that, in what they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that calumniate your good behavior in Christ.

But reverence in your levavot Rebbe, Melech HaMoshiach as Adoneinu, prepared always for a hitstaddekut (an apologetic defense) to everyone coming to you with a she'elah (question), ready with a word concerning the tikvah in you,--
What has that to do with the question I asked? And the question I asked only requires a yes or no answer, not a detailed rundown of why and what as that would derail the thread some more. I would be interested in what your "yes" response would use as support, which is probably what you would say, given that you said what you did in the first place. It would make a very good thread for you to start and I will add my two cents. I have some other threads in the works and no time to take on another at the moment as to starting one.
 
I get the impression you are in agreement with PSA, and Christ enduring the Fathers wrath in our place?
The post says there are 7 theories re Atonement-possibly more-not so?
Which one do you hold to as Biblically sound?
 
No one is arguing that men have a will and that they exercise it. They always do what they most desire to do. The question is---though it really ought to be in the topic of free will or a thread that is directed at free will----whether or not unregenerate man ever has the desire that overrides all other desires, to give up his sinful pleasures all the time, and come under the Kingship of God? To bring that back into the thread topic of definite atonement, put forth a case for against definite atonement, depending what you view of my above statement is, and how that would affect definite atonement.
I am still getting myself acquainted with this Forum.
The answer is of course not and I would assume you have the same attitude towards yourself.
Absolutely.
It would make a very good thread for you to start and I will add my two cents. I have some other threads in the works and no time to take on another at the moment as to starting one.
Later-maybe Sorella.
Johann.
 
The post says there are 7 theories re Atonement-possibly more-not so?
Which one do you hold to as Biblically sound?
Well there are a few parts which make the whole.
 
Have you considered 1 Co 2:14, Jn 3:3-5, Ro 8:7-8?
Absolutely-

Now the natural man (psuchikos de anthrōpos). Note absence of article here, “A natural man” (an unregenerate man). Paul does not employ modern psychological terms and he exercises variety in his use of all the terms here present as pneuma and pneumatikos, psuchē and psuchikos, sarx and sarkinos and sarkikos.

A helpful discussion of the various uses of these words in the New Testament is given by Burton in his New Testament Word Studies, pp. 62-68, and in his Spirit, Soul, and Flesh.

The papyri furnish so many examples of sarx, pneuma, and psuchē that Moulton and Milligan make no attempt at an exhaustive treatment, but give a few miscellaneous examples to illustrate the varied uses that parallel the New Testament.

Psuchikos is a qualitative adjective from psuchē (breath of life like anima, life, soul). Here the Vulgate renders it by animalis and the German by sinnlich, the original sense of animal life as in Jud_1:19; Jas_3:15. In 1Co_15:44, 1Co_15:46 there is the same contrast between psuchikos and pneumatikos as here. The psuchikos man is the unregenerate man while the pneumatikos man is the renewed man, born again of the Spirit of God.


Receiveth not (ou dechetai). Does not accept, rejects, refuses to accept.


In Rom_8:7 Paul definitely states the inability (oude gar dunatai) of the mind of the flesh to receive the things of the Spirit untouched by the Holy Spirit.

Certainly the initiative comes from God whose Holy Spirit makes it possible for us to accept the things of the Spirit of God.


They are no longer “foolishness” (mōria) to us as was once the case (1Co_1:23).

Today one notes certain of the intelligentsia who sneer at Christ and Christianity in their own blinded ignorance. [Love this]

He cannot know them (ou dunatai gnōnai). He is not able to get a knowledge (ingressive second aorist active infinitive of ginōskō). His helpless condition calls for pity in place of impatience on our part, though such an one usually poses as a paragon of wisdom and commiserates the deluded followers of Christ.

They are spiritually judged (pneumatikōs anakrinetai). Paul and Luke are fond of this verb, though nowhere else in the N.T. Paul uses it only in I Corinthians. The word means a sifting process to get at the truth by investigation as of a judge. In Act_17:11 the Beroeans scrutinized the Scriptures. These psuchikoi men are incapable of rendering a decision for they are unable to recognize the facts. They judge by the psuchē (mere animal nature) rather than by the pneuma (the renewed spirit).
RWP

The sad situation of the present world-the doctrine of election running-like a scarlet thread-from the Old to the New.
Shalom
J.
 
Well there are a few parts which make the whole.
Since we are resorting to circular reasoning-I am under no obligation to tell you my stance on Kippur/Yom kippur-and so do you.
These theories still stand.
Shalom
Johann.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Absolutely-

Now the natural man (psuchikos de anthrōpos). Note absence of article here, “A natural man” (an unregenerate man). Paul does not employ modern psychological terms and he exercises variety in his use of all the terms here present as pneuma and pneumatikos, psuchē and psuchikos, sarx and sarkinos and sarkikos.

A helpful discussion of the various uses of these words in the New Testament is given by Burton in his New Testament Word Studies, pp. 62-68, and in his Spirit, Soul, and Flesh.

The papyri furnish so many examples of sarx, pneuma, and psuchē that Moulton and Milligan make no attempt at an exhaustive treatment, but give a few miscellaneous examples to illustrate the varied uses that parallel the New Testament.

Psuchikos is a qualitative adjective from psuchē (breath of life like anima, life, soul). Here the Vulgate renders it by animalis and the German by sinnlich, the original sense of animal life as in Jud_1:19; Jas_3:15. In 1Co_15:44, 1Co_15:46 there is the same contrast between psuchikos and pneumatikos as here. The psuchikos man is the unregenerate man while the pneumatikos man is the renewed man, born again of the Spirit of God.
Receiveth not (ou dechetai). Does not accept, rejects, refuses to accept.

In Rom_8:7 Paul definitely states the inability (oude gar dunatai) of the mind of the flesh to receive the things of the Spirit untouched by the Holy Spirit.
So then we are agreed that the natural (unregenerate) man cannot choose the things of God.
Certainly the initiative comes from God whose Holy Spirit makes it possible for us to accept the things of the Spirit of God.

They are no longer “foolishness” (mōria) to us as was once the case (1Co_1:23).

Today one notes certain of the intelligentsia who sneer at Christ and Christianity in their own blinded ignorance. [Love this]

He cannot know them (ou dunatai gnōnai). He is not able to get a knowledge (ingressive second aorist active infinitive of ginōskō). His helpless condition calls for pity in place of impatience on our part, though such an one usually poses as a paragon of wisdom and commiserates the deluded followers of Christ.

They are spiritually judged (pneumatikōs anakrinetai). Paul and Luke are fond of this verb, though nowhere else in the N.T. Paul uses it only in I Corinthians. The word means a sifting process to get at the truth by investigation as of a judge. In Act_17:11 the Beroeans scrutinized the Scriptures. These psuchikoi men are incapable of rendering a decision for they are unable to recognize the facts. They judge by the psuchē (mere animal nature) rather than by the pneuma (the renewed spirit).
RWP

The sad situation of the present world-the doctrine of election running-like a scarlet thread-from the Old to the New.
Shalom
 
Last edited:
No one is arguing that men have a will and that they exercise it. They always do what they most desire to do. The question is---though it really ought to be in the topic of free will or a thread that is directed at free will----whether or not unregenerate man ever has the desire that overrides all other desires, to give up his sinful pleasures all the time, and come under the Kingship of God? To bring that back into the thread topic of definite atonement, put forth a case for against definite atonement, depending what you view of my above statement is, and how that would affect definite atonement

So then we are agreed that the natural man cannot choose to submit to God because the things of God are foolishness to him (1 Co 2:14, Jn 3;:-5, Ro 8:7-8).
Affirmative.
J.
 
Interesting read-is this by Alford-or Henry Alford?
I believe it is Henry Alford. But the article quoted in my post is a response to Dr. Wallace’s comments to Dr, Brian Abasciano.

Doug
 
And it was a guarantee that most would not, therefore a limitation is imposed by that fact alone.
It is not a limitation, it is a result! Any man can be saved! No limitation! The blood of Christ is sufficient for the sins of any man! No limitation! That most will not be saved does not mean they couldn’t have been saved. Limitation is an after the fact perspective.

Calvinism’s teachings that God has irrevocably decided that some will be chosen to salvation and some to destruction is the de-facto limitation, thus, limited atonement. (And in keeping with my “Limitation is an after the fact perspective” comment above, it is after God’s decree that we can affirm a limitation has been made.)
It cannot do what it was intended to do in the view of A'ism. All men have the faculty of "may" believing, but not all "can" believe. First grade distinction?
If all may believe (by God’s graciousness), then all must be capable (by God’s graciousness) of being saved.

The Gospel is “the power of God unto salvation”, and it’s being preached to all nations, means anyone who hears the gospel is able to be save through believing the gospel the gospel preach to them.

I would argue that all men may be saved—that is, they are capable of being saved by God, by both his willingness to save them, and by his power that can “forgive us of our sins, and cleanse us of all unrighteousness”— but that the large majority of mankind will not be saved because of their continuing unbelief. They, “who suppress the truth by their wickedness”, choose to reject the truth of the gospel that they have heard.


Doug
 
What is X chosen to in predestination?
“…some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death.”
Westminster Confession 3.3

This is precisely what I said about Calvinism. C is chosen to life, and Y is chosen to destruction!


Doug
 
“…some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death.”
Westminster Confession 3.3

This is precisely what I said about Calvinism. C is chosen to life, and Y is chosen to destruction!


Doug
That does not mean chosen to destruction or predestined to destruction. Look at the different words. "Predestined" and "foreordained." Those God predestined means He appoints them to eternal life and it is certain they will arrive at eternal life (faith in the person and work of Jesus.)because He will do it. Foreordained is the condition of us all as willful sinners, so they were not predestined to everlasting death but came to it by their own actions. God ordained what the destination of sinners would be---everlasting death. Only God's action of grace and mercy, and the necessary work of Jesus, spares any from this.
 
It is not a limitation, it is a result! Any man can be saved! No limitation! The blood of Christ is sufficient for the sins of any man! No limitation! That most will not be saved does not mean they couldn’t have been saved. Limitation is an after the fact perspective.

Calvinism’s teachings that God has irrevocably decided that some will be chosen to salvation and some to destruction is the de-facto limitation, thus, limited atonement. (And in keeping with my “Limitation is an after the fact perspective” comment above, it is after God’s decree that we can affirm a limitation has been made.)
This is just a jumble of word salad. A result is a limitation if it only applies to some of all.

Not true. Calvinism does not say God chooses people for destruction. It only says He chooses some for salvation. The rest remain in their natural condition as sinners. And Calvinism teaches that of course the cross is an adequate sacrifice to save all individuals. But that has to be rectified with the fact that scripture teaches us that not all people are redeemed by the cross. And it has to be done so in accordance with what the scriptures teach on the matter, and must be consistent with the character and self revelation of God.

The only solution is that God intended it to do something and it accomplished what it was intended to do. So what did it God intend it to do?

Save those He was giving to Christ (I have already presented those scriptures.) And in order to find out who those are we look to what the sovereign God says about it every time His word refers to the "called," "the few who are chosen," the "chosen," "the elect," the "predestined." And we see also in the scriptures that these refer to those who believe and repent, are born again from above, etc. that it never says a single thing about choosing any of these, not a peep about choosing Christ, so it must be something God does in us and when He does it, we do believe the gospel when we hear it.
 
Guess @TibiasDad have a right to voice his side of the coin-since there are two sides to a coin-the problem is, as I see it-should I disagree with YOU on all 5 points of Calvin-I would be excommunicated.
J.
You tell me someone has a right to voice his side, which I never said he didn't, all while indicating that I should not voice my side. :unsure:

What a lousy assertion and unfounded accusation to make.
 
I get the impression you are haughty and easily offended-do whatever you wish.
J.
Don't confuse not being wishy washy for hautyness.
 
Point taken and heeded. But after I post this I feel it much better for me to just move on as I am too often misunderstood here
and truly wont be missed.
Same here-I am also riding in the same boat.
J.
 
Don't confuse not being wishy washy for hautyness.
1Co 1:26 For ... see the kind of persons whom God sent to call you, brethren, how that not many wise men according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, ... :
1Co 1:27 But God chose the foolish things of the world in order to put to shame the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world in order to put to shame the things which are mighty;
1Co 1:28 And lowborns, without family or descent of the world, and things which are counted as nothing, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to nullify things that are:
1Co 1:29 That no flesh should boast in His presence.
1Co 1:30 But from Him are ye in Christ Jesus, Who became unto us wisdom from God, both righteousness, and holiness, even redemption:
1Co 1:31 In Order That, according as it has been written, He that boasteth, let him boast in the Lord.

Both of us would do well if we heed what stands written-this is not a 'showdown' of artful sophistry and intellectualism-it is all about preaching the crucified and risen Messiah.
J.
Off to gym.
 
Back
Top