• **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

What do you say this means? Acts 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed."
I submit the explanation of my disagreement in the scholarly words of Arminian theologian Dr. Brian Abasciano in response to Dr. Daniel Wallace:

However, I would interpret Acts 13:48 much differently than Dan. I do not think it refers to election. A better translation of the passage is, “as many as were set in position for eternal life believed” or “as many as were disposed to eternal life believed.” The word typically translated “appointed” can also be translated “to set in position” and can be used of human disposition/attitude, which fits the context of Acts 13:48 better, as it stands in contrasting parallel to the attitude of the Jews of the same episode who judged themselves unworthy of eternal life, opposing Paul and rejecting the gospel (Acts 13:46). No agent of the action is identified for the passive verb, meaning it could be another agent like God that prepared the subjects for eternal life, or Paul as the preacher of the gospel, or the preaching of the gospel itself, or even the subjects of the passive verb themselves (akin to saying, “as many as were set for the test passed it”),[2] or most likely, a combination of these and other factors. It would be too involved to present an exegesis of this text in this setting; the matter deserves a whole article of its own. But suffice it to say here that Acts 13:48 fails to establish Dan’s point. Moreover, it is worth noting that Friberg’s lexicon lists “as many as had become disposed toward eternal life” as a possible translation.[3] Similarly, distinguished grammarian Max Zerwick indicates “who had been set (in the way)” as a possible translation in Zerwick and Grosvenor’s well known A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament. And the most authoritative lexicon for New Testament studies (abbreviated BDAG) does not take the verb in question to mean “appoint,” but construes it under the meaning of “to put in place.”[4] It is not surprising, then, that the distinguished biblical scholar Henry Alford argued for the rendering, “as many as were disposed,” in his well respected 4 volume work, The Greek Testament. (John Piper of all people sings Alford’s praises thus: “When I’m stumped with a . . . grammatical or syntactical or logical flow in Paul, I go to Henry Alford. Henry Alford mostly answers-he . . . comes closer more consistently than any other human commentator to asking my kinds of questions.”) Alford’s treatment of Acts 13:48 can be found in this volume available online.” (Red emphasis mine)

That’s how I answer that….

Doug
 
To die on behalf of those who will not believe is not to say it failed, but only that its efficacy is not taken by the sinner. It is refused by them! Christ’s work is still capable of saving, but the unbelieving heart, by God’s design, will not allow God to apply the efficacy to the sinner’s life. God says “to those who receive him, he will give the right to become the children of God.” (John 1:12) Receiving/believing precedes the giving of the rights.
The sovereign God doesn't condition his will on the actions of man.
 
The sovereign God doesn't condition his will on the actions of man.

Luk 13:34 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!

Notice the willingness (Will) of God. Notice the reason why they did not receive.
 
Luk 13:34 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!

Notice the willingness (Will) of God. Notice the reason why they did not receive.
I notice the grief of the Jewish man Jesus as he laments the coming destruction of Jerusalem because they would not receive him.

They did not receive for the same reason that anyone does not receive, they didn't/don't want it.
 
I notice the grief of the Jewish man Jesus as he laments the coming destruction of Jerusalem because they would not receive him.

They did not receive for the same reason that anyone does not receive, they didn't/don't want it.

Or they wanted something more. We tend to listen to those we love. Which is one of the reasons that faithfulness is often multi-generational.
 
I submit the explanation of my disagreement in the scholarly words of Arminian theologian Dr. Brian Abasciano in response to Dr. Daniel Wallace:
Do you not have your own words? Do you just pick the writings of others according with what you agree with already, because you have already been taught it? Do you understand the meaning of apologetics when it comes to our Christian beliefs? There is of course a discipline of apologetics, but every believer should over time become skilled in contending for and defending the faith. That is, know what we believe, why we believe it, and be able to articulate it and support it, using the whole counsel of God.

Which is not being done by the person you quote. In addition it contains a number of logical fallacies of different types, but I will start with the logical fallacy you use to present it.
Appealing to an authority that is neither verified or proven to be right, as support for your position.
However, I would interpret Acts 13:48 much differently than Dan. I do not think it refers to election. A better translation of the passage is, “as many as were set in position for eternal life believed” or “as many as were disposed to eternal life believed.” The word typically translated “appointed” can also be translated “to set in position” and can be used of human disposition/attitude, which fits the context of Acts 13:48 better, as it stands in contrasting parallel to the attitude of the Jews of the same episode who judged themselves unworthy of eternal life, opposing Paul and rejecting the gospel (Acts 13:46). No agent of the action is identified for the passive verb, meaning it could be another agent like God that prepared the subjects for eternal life, or Paul as the preacher of the gospel, or the preaching of the gospel itself, or even the subjects of the passive verb themselves (akin to saying, “as many as were set for the test passed it”),[2] or most likely, a combination of these and other factors. It would be too involved to present an exegesis of this text in this setting; the matter deserves a whole article of its own. But suffice it to say here that Acts 13:48 fails to establish Dan’s point. Moreover, it is worth noting that Friberg’s lexicon lists “as many as had become disposed toward eternal life” as a possible translation.[3] Similarly, distinguished grammarian Max Zerwick indicates “who had been set (in the way)” as a possible translation in Zerwick and Grosvenor’s well known A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament. And the most authoritative lexicon for New Testament studies (abbreviated BDAG) does not take the verb in question to mean “appoint,” but construes it under the meaning of “to put in place.”[4] It is not surprising, then, that the distinguished biblical scholar Henry Alford argued for the rendering, “as many as were disposed,” in his well respected 4 volume work, The Greek Testament. (John Piper of all people sings Alford’s praises thus: “When I’m stumped with a . . . grammatical or syntactical or logical flow in Paul, I go to Henry Alford. Henry Alford mostly answers-he . . . comes closer more consistently than any other human commentator to asking my kinds of questions.”) Alford’s treatment of Acts 13:48 can be found in this volume available online.”
I will highlight the logical fallacies in green and leave it to you to determine if possible why they are fallacies that destroy all the weight his words carry if one just accepts them without critical thinking. I look forward to you doing so or at least asking why they are logical fallacies. Even better than that would to hear your own exegesis of the passage.
 
No it is not! The decree of God is the point of necessity; all that follows is mere detail. The predetermining of God that X is chosen, and Y is not, establishes the finished results. Belief does not, unbelief does not. That is merely a “fashion accessory” to the clothing of the Elect and Reprobates. God’s choice is the decision point of certainty. Nothing else needs to happen from that point on for the results to be certain.
Just awesome how non Calvinist are frequently telling the Calvinist that the non Calvinist understands their doctrine better that does the Calvinist! What is X chosen to in predestination? Let me give it a split seconds worth of contemplation. Oh----belief. What are they predestined to? Oh--to believe. Believe what? The gospel. The person and work of Jesus? And how does that happen? Oh---Romans 10:14-17 How then will they call on Hi in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in Him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!" But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?" So faith comes from hearing and hearing by the word of Christ.
So see, you were completely wrong about what the doctrine of predestination teaches and/or produces.
It is not a limitation of potential, for all men may believe.
And it was a guarantee that most would not, therefore a limitation is imposed by that fact alone. 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?
There is equal potential, from God’s perspective, for he desires, and would allow anyone to be saved.
Allow anyone to be saved? Really? Exactly who do you think God is? Last I checked He was the Creator of all, sovereign over all, holy, holy, holy. Now compare that to a creature.
Potential is all on the God side of the equation, for man can not mandate that God to do anything, so any limitation is purely on the results side, and failure is completely on man’s shoulders, while salvation is purely on God’s ledger because he is the only one who can save, forgive, adopt, and allow for reconciliation, and this is all gracious because God does not have to do anything good for us. It is all of God from first to last. He grants the potential, he sets the protocols (which include man’s responsibility to believe, repent, and confess), and fulfills his promise to save, the only semblance of obligation placed on God by God, not by man’s actions.
This is a jumble of words, reinforced by high sounding praises of God, but which are also contradictory with in the jumble of them. So I will address the crucial point. "for man cannot mandate that God do anything---" And then you proceed to mandate the only way in which He would do something.
 
Exegete that passage.
ὅσοι ἦσαν τεταγμένοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον] as many of them as were ordained to eternal (Messianic) life. Luke regards, in accordance with the Pauline conception (Romans 9; Eph_1:4-5; Eph_1:11; Eph_3:11; 2Th_2:13, al.), the believing of those Gentiles as ensuing in conformity to their destination, ordered by God already (namely, from of old), to partake of eternal life.

Not all in general became believers, but all those who were divinely destined to this ζωή; and not the rest.

Chrysostom correctly remarks: ἀφωρισμένοι τῷ Θεῷ. The τάξις of God in regard to those who became believers was in accordance with His πρόγνωσις, by means of which He foreknew them as credituros; but the divine τάξις was realized by the divine κλῆσις effectual for faith (Rom_8:28-30)—of which Paul, with his preaching, was here the instrument.

It was dogmatic arbitrariness which converted our passage into a proof of the decretum absolutum;[13] see Beza and Calvin in loc., and Canon. Dordrac. p. 205, ed. Augusti.

For Luke leaves entirely out of account the relation of “being ordained” to free self-determination; the object of his remark is not to teach a doctrine, but to indicate a historical sequence. Indeed, the evident relation, in which this notice stands to the apostle’s own words, ἐπειδὴ … ζωῆς (Act_13:46), rather testifies against the conception of the absolute decree, and for the idea, according to which the destination of God does not exclude (comp. Act_2:41) individual freedom (ὡς οὐ κατʼ ἀνάγκην, Chrysostom); although, if the matter is contemplated only from one of those two sides which it necessarily has, the other point of view, owing to the imperfection of man’s mode of looking at it, cannot receive proportionally its due, but appears to be logically nullified.

See, more particularly, the remark subjoined to Rom_9:33. Accordingly, it is not to be explained of the actus paedagogicos (Calovius), of the praesentem gratiae operationem per evangelium (Bengel), of the drawing of the Father, Joh_6:44; Joh_6:37, etc., with the Lutheran dogmatic writers; but the literal meaning is to be adhered to, namely, the divine destination to eternal salvation:

ἔθετο αὐτοὺς ὁ Θεὸς εἰς περιποίησιν σωτηρίας, 1Th_5:9. Morus, Rosenmüller, Kuinoel, and others, with rationalizing arbitrariness, import the sense: “quibus, dum fidem doctrinae habebant, certa erat vita beata et aeterna,” by which the meaning of the word τεταγμένοι is entirely explained away.

Others take ἦσαν τεταγμ. in the middle sense (quotquot se ordinaverant ad vitam aeternam), as Grotius, Krebs, Loesner, and others,[14] in which case τεταγμ. is often understood in its military sense (qui ordines servant; see Maji Obss. III. p. 81 ff.): “qui de agmine et classe erant sperantium vel contendentium ad vitam aeternam” (Mede in Wolf).

But it is against the middle rendering of τεταγμ. (comp. on Act_20:13), that it is just seized on in order to evade an unpleasant meaning; and for the sensus militaris of τεταγμ. no ground at all is afforded by the context, which, on the contrary, suggests nothing else than the simple signification “ordained” for τεταγμ., and the sense of the aim for εἰς ζωὴν αἰών.

Others join εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον to ἐπίστευσαν, so that they understand τεταγμ. either in the usual and correct sense destinati (so Heinrichs), or quotquot tempus constituerant (Markland), or congregati (Knatchbull), in spite of the simple order of the words and of the expression πιστεύειν εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον being without example; for in 1Ti_1:16 εἰς defines the aim.

Among the Rabbins, also, the idea and expression “ordinati (îåëðéí) ad vitam futuri saeculi” (as well as the opposite: “ordinati ad Gehennam”) are very common. See the many passages in Wetstein.

But Wetstein himself interprets in an entirely erroneous manner: that they were on account of their faith ordained to eternal life. The faith, foreseen by God, is subsequent, not previous to the ordination; by the faith of those concerned their divine τάξις becomes manifest and recognised. See Rom_8:30; Rom_10:14; Eph_1:11; Eph_1:13, al.
H. Meyer



and as many as were ordained unto eternal life believed; faith is not the cause, or condition of the decree of eternal life, but a means fixed in it, and is a fruit and effect of it, and what certainly follows upon it, as in these persons:

some would have the words rendered, "as many as were disposed unto eternal life believed"; which is not countenanced by the ancient versions. The Arabic renders it as we do, and the Syriac thus, "as many as were put, or appointed unto eternal life"; and the Vulgate Latin version, "as many as were pre-ordained".

Moreover, the phrase of being "disposed unto", or "for eternal life", is a very unusual, if not a very improper, and an inaccurate one; men are said to be disposed to an habit, or to an act, as to vice or virtue, but not to reward or punishment, as to heaven or hell; nor does it appear that these Gentiles had any good dispositions to eternal life, antecedent to their believing; for though they are said, Act_13:42 to entreat the apostles to preach the same things to them the next sabbath, yet the words as there observed, according to their natural order, may be rendered "they", i.e. the apostles, "besought the Gentiles"; and in some copies and versions, the "Gentiles" are not mentioned at all: and as for their being "glad", and "glorifying the word of the Lord", it is not evident that this was before their believing; and if it was, such things have been found in persons, who have had no true, real, and inward dispositions to spiritual things, as in many of our Lord's hearers; besides, admitting that there are, in some, good dispositions to eternal life, previous to faith, and that desiring eternal life, and seeking after it, be accounted such, yet these may be where faith does not follow; as in the young rich ruler, that came to Christ with such an inquiry, and went away sorrowful: as many therefore as are so disposed, do not always believe, faith does not always follow such dispositions; and after all, one would have thought that the Jews themselves, who were externally religious, and were looking for the Messiah, and especially the devout and able women, were more disposed unto eternal life, than the ignorant and idolatrous Gentiles; and yet the latter believed, and the former did not: it follows then, that their faith did not arise from previous dispositions to eternal life, but was the fruit and effect of divine ordination unto it; and the word here used, in various places in this book, signifies determination and appointment, and not disposition of mind; see Act_15:2


Gill.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As many as were ordained to eternal life (hosoi ēsan tetagmenoi eis zōēn aiōnion). Periphrastic past perfect passive indicative of tassō, a military term to place in orderly arrangement. The word “ordain” is not the best translation here. “Appointed,” as Hackett shows, is better. The Jews here had voluntarily rejected the word of God.

On the other side were those Gentiles who gladly accepted what the Jews had rejected, not all the Gentiles. Why these Gentiles here ranged themselves on God’s side as opposed to the Jews Luke does not tell us.

This verse does not solve the vexed problem of divine sovereignty and human free agency.

There is no evidence that Luke had in mind an absolutum decretum of personal salvation. Paul had shown that God’s plan extended to and included Gentiles. Certainly the Spirit of God does move upon the human heart to which some respond, as here, while others push him away.

Believed (episteusan). Summary or constative first aorist active indicative of pisteuō. The subject of this verb is the relative clause. By no manner of legerdemain can it be made to mean “those who believe were appointed.” It was saving faith that was exercised only by those who were appointed unto eternal life, who were ranged on the side of eternal life, who were thus revealed as the subjects of God’s grace by the stand that they took on this day for the Lord. It was a great day for the kingdom of God.
RWP.




Act_13:48. ἐδόξ. τὸν λ. τοῦ Κ.: δοξ. τὸν Θ.; frequent in Luke and Paul, cf. 2Th_3:1 for the nearest approach to the exact phrase here.—ὅσοι ἦσαν τεταγ.:
there is no countenance here for the absolutum decretum of the Calvinists, since Act_13:46 had already shown that the Jews had acted through their own choice.

The words are really nothing more than a corollary of St. Paul’s ἀναγκαῖον: the Jews as a nation had been ordained to eternal life—they had rejected this election—but those who believed amongst the Gentiles were equally ordained by God to eternal life, and it was in accordance with His divine appointment that the Apostles had turned to them.

How did it go?
Johann.
 
ὅσοι ἦσαν τεταγμένοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον] as many of them as were ordained to eternal (Messianic) life. Luke regards, in accordance with the Pauline conception (Romans 9; Eph_1:4-5; Eph_1:11; Eph_3:11; 2Th_2:13, al.), the believing of those Gentiles as ensuing in conformity to their destination, ordered by God already (namely, from of old), to partake of eternal life.

Not all in general became believers, but all those who were divinely destined to this ζωή; and not the rest.
Yes.
Chrysostom correctly remarks: ἀφωρισμένοι τῷ Θεῷ. The τάξις of God in regard to those who became believers was in accordance with His πρόγνωσις, by means of which He foreknew them as credituros; but the divine τάξις was realized by the divine κλῆσις effectual for faith (Rom_8:28-30)—of which Paul, with his preaching, was here the instrument.

It was dogmatic arbitrariness which converted our passage into a proof of the decretum absolutum;[13] see Beza and Calvin in loc., and Canon. Dordrac. p. 205, ed. Augusti.
Speak plainly in English please. ;)
and as many as were ordained unto eternal life believed; faith is not the cause, or condition of the decree of eternal life, but a means fixed in it, and is a fruit and effect of it, and what certainly follows upon it, as in these persons:

some would have the words rendered, "as many as were disposed unto eternal life believed"; which is not countenanced by the ancient versions. The Arabic renders it as we do, and the Syriac thus, "as many as were put, or appointed unto eternal life"; and the Vulgate Latin version, "as many as were pre-ordained".
One can scarcely find a more clear, plain, and simple phrase than "and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed." Couple that with all the places Jesus says that it is the one's the Father gives Him who believe (not those who believe He gives to Jesus) all the places the believers are called the elect, the foreknown, the called, the chosen, and its meaning is further verified. When someone believes that it is a sinful man who makes the choice to approach a holy God; and that God allows Him to and then cleanses him; and because of that belief takes hold of an unambiguous declaration as that passage in scripture to find a way to make it to be saying what they believe, it is an indication, red flags waving, that they are altering things to suit themselves. The very opposite of sound doctrine and rightly dividing (handling) the word of God.
This verse does not solve the vexed problem of divine sovereignty and human free agency.
I don't consider that a vexed problem. First it must be established that we have free agency and precisely what you mean by that. We belong to God, every last one of mankind. He made us. We are the creatures the Creator created. Each and every one, believer and unbeliever alike, owes God worship, obedience, allegiance. We were created in His image and likeness and meant to bear that image in all we do, in our relationships one with another, in marriage, in family. Just because we changed, that did not change God one iota. So there is God's sovereignty and man's responsibility, and they run side by side, one does not cancel the other out.
There is no evidence that Luke had in mind an absolutum decretum of personal salvation. Paul had shown that God’s plan extended to and included Gentiles. Certainly the Spirit of God does move upon the human heart to which some respond, as here, while others push him away.
If course he did. What else is eternal life? Those who responded were appointed by God to eternal life, and these hearts He moved upon. He did not move on the others. IOW some He regenerated and some He did not. "The wind blows where it will and no one knows where it comes from or where it is going." Also in John 3.
Believed (episteusan). Summary or constative first aorist active indicative of pisteuō. The subject of this verb is the relative clause. By no manner of legerdemain can it be made to mean “those who believe were appointed.” It was saving faith that was exercised only by those who were appointed unto eternal life, who were ranged on the side of eternal life, who were thus revealed as the subjects of God’s grace by the stand that they took on this day for the Lord. It was a great day for the kingdom of God.
RWP.
That is why it says as many as were appointed---believed.
Act_13:48. ἐδόξ. τὸν λ. τοῦ Κ.: δοξ. τὸν Θ.; frequent in Luke and Paul, cf. 2Th_3:1 for the nearest approach to the exact phrase here.—ὅσοι ἦσαν τεταγ.: there is no countenance here for the absolutum decretum of the Calvinists, since Act_13:46 had already shown that the Jews had acted through their own choice.
They didn't choose to not believe. They already didn't believe. And they continued to not believe.
The words are really nothing more than a corollary of St. Paul’s ἀναγκαῖον: the Jews as a nation had been ordained to eternal life—they had rejected this election—but those who believed amongst the Gentiles were equally ordained by God to eternal life, and it was in accordance with His divine appointment that the Apostles had turned to them.
The Jews were not ordained to eternal life. If they had been, they all would have eternal life. God tells us in Is that His word accomplishes everything He sends it out to do. There were some Jews who received eternal life under the old covenant but not through keeping the covenant, for all failed at some points. Those saved then were saved the same way we are in Christ. Faith. A heart attached to God in trust that would not depart from Him. It was through them that eternal life came to all nations, and that was what they were elected for. Laws can change no ones heart, and the blood of bulls and rams cannot cleanse a conscience.
 
One can scarcely find a more clear, plain, and simple phrase than "and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed." Couple that with all the places Jesus says that it is the one's the Father gives Him who believe (not those who believe He gives to Jesus) all the places the believers are called the elect, the foreknown, the called, the chosen, and its meaning is further verified. When someone believes that it is a sinful man who makes the choice to approach a holy God; and that God allows Him to and then cleanses him; and because of that belief takes hold of an unambiguous declaration as that passage in scripture to find a way to make it to be saying what they believe, it is an indication, red flags waving, that they are altering things to suit themselves. The very opposite of sound doctrine and rightly dividing (handling) the word of God.
Yes, well, I consult various scholars and read a lot-I am all for rightly cutting straight the D'varim of YHVH-wouldn't want to willfully bring dishonor upon God's word-plenty Scripture references re choosing and choice and yielding obedience to the Imperatives as it stands written.
I am not dogmatic, putting God in a box-as if THIS is the way and manner it MUST/DEI happen.
 
The Jews were not ordained to eternal life. If they had been, they all would have eternal life. God tells us in Is that His word accomplishes everything He sends it out to do. There were some Jews who received eternal life under the old covenant but not through keeping the covenant, for all failed at some points. Those saved then were saved the same way we are in Christ. Faith. A heart attached to God in trust that would not depart from Him. It was through them that eternal life came to all nations, and that was what they were elected for. Laws can change no ones heart, and the blood of bulls and rams cannot cleanse a conscience.
I believe the post was concurring with you.
 
That’s the trouble with protestant proof texting.

Your theology has to line up with it all, not just the bits you like.

1 Timothy 4:10
10 For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe.

1 John 2:2
2 and he is the expiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

Does not fit with Calvinism does it?
We are catholic because of scripture, not in spite of it.

But then much of TULIP is easily dismissed.
like irresistible grace that can be resisted!

Acts 7:51
51 "You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you.
However you construe it, do you believe in hell?
 
As many as were ordained to eternal life (hosoi ēsan tetagmenoi eis zōēn aiōnion). Periphrastic past perfect passive indicative of tassō, a military term to place in orderly arrangement. The word “ordain” is not the best translation here. “Appointed,” as Hackett shows, is better. The Jews here had voluntarily rejected the word of God.

On the other side were those Gentiles who gladly accepted what the Jews had rejected, not all the Gentiles. Why these Gentiles here ranged themselves on God’s side as opposed to the Jews Luke does not tell us.

This verse does not solve the vexed problem of divine sovereignty and human free agency.
There is no problem.

Fallen human free agency will never choose to submit to God in all things because he prefers self rule, not God's rule.

Only those within whom God works to change their hearts to prefer it freely choose to submit to God in all things.
Apart from the sovereign work of God in the human heart, no one chooses to submit to God.
 
There is no problem.

Fallen human free agency will never choose to submit to God in all things because he prefers self rule, not God's rule.

Only those within whom God works to change their hearts to prefer it freely choose to submit to God in all things.
Apart from the sovereign work of God in the human heart, no one chooses to submit to God.
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.
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.
 
Yes, well, I consult various scholars and read a lot-I am all for rightly cutting straight the D'varim of YHVH-wouldn't want to willfully bring dishonor upon God's word-plenty Scripture references re choosing and choice and yielding obedience to the Imperatives as it stands written.
I am not dogmatic, putting God in a box-as if THIS is the way and manner it MUST/DEI happen.
Interestingly enough, one would expect to find examples of people choosing and choice in the Bible or in everything for that matter, as that is what people do.

Do you find people in the NT outside the gospels which were still dealing with the old covenant, choosing Christ or do you see them simply believing or not believing? Do you find in the epistles instructions on righteousness (imperatives given to those who are already believers) or do you see laws to which we must be obedient to as we see in the old covenant? Make this choice and this will happen, make this other choice and this is what will happen. This way is life. This way is death.

The entire foundation (doctrinal teaching) of Christ's church as laid out in the NT is dogmatic. There is such a thing as being dogmatic concerning things that are mere opinions with no proof. And then there is dogmatic on those things that are stated as truth by those God appointed to establish this truth. Much better than blowing about in the wind.
 
The title of the OP is Definite Atonement. Some are inserting other topics even in the responses that begin on topic which demand a response that are completely off topic. Present a case for or against definite atonement and use scriptures that deal with that topic.
 
Interestingly enough, one would expect to find examples of people choosing and choice in the Bible or in everything for that matter, as that is what people do.
Indicative there is free will.
Do you find people in the NT outside the gospels which were still dealing with the old covenant, choosing Christ or do you see them simply believing or not believing? Do you find in the epistles instructions on righteousness (imperatives given to those who are already believers) or do you see laws to which we must be obedient to as we see in the old covenant? Make this choice and this will happen, make this other choice and this is what will happen. This way is life. This way is death.
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?
If I am overstepping my boundaries in asking you this-probably breaking every conceivable rule in the ToS-that's fine by me.
Iron sharpens iron.

An aside-I am not baptized into Calvin-Sorella.


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,--

J.
 
The title of the OP is Definite Atonement. Some are inserting other topics even in the responses that begin on topic which demand a response that are completely off topic. Present a case for or against definite atonement and use scriptures that deal with that topic.
Understood.


A good read.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
#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.
 
Back
Top