Partial LA?

[Josheb]

@Josheb said: The irony here is that by denying God loss and grief God's omni-attributes and aseity is denied, not affirmed.

Incorrect, and I've explained how. Repetitious dissent is nonsensical fallacy.

God can do anything. Even lose a creature to sin, feel that loss, and express it. He is not a robot. {This should say Josheb said, not makesends. Edited by staff as per request of both posters.}

makesends said:
I don't deny God grief.

It's not an argument at all. It's just a denial of what you implied —that I deny God both loss and grief

This is disingenuous.

Post 73 states,

You said, "Grief is the emotion felt when loss has occurred." But it seems at best, temporal loss, if truly loss at all, of which I'm not convinced. Loss, for humans, is a source of human grief. Furthermore, logically, if loss causes grief, it doesn't follow that grief is only from loss. I don't see loss as the source of grief for God, though sin in itself as rebellion of his precious creatures against himself is a source of grief, yet that is not loss, because even that is temporal only...............

God's grief and loss were denied. Now that is being denied and contradicted.

I did not frame grief as a dependency. Doing so is completely inconsistent with scripture and logic. For example, If God's wrath is dependent upon God observing sin that does not mean God is dependent on sin, or that he is dependent in any way upon anything compromising His aseity. He's not lacking in any way and has no need. Conflating conditionality with causality, conditionality with dependency, conditionality with a lack and need are the problems to be solved.

To me, what happens in the temporal is only real in comparison to the eternal, because of its results in the eternal: Christ and his Church. Scripture otherwise describes the temporal as a vapor, in contrast to the eternal.

That is also a series of problems to be solved, none of which exist on my side of the conversation. Emotions, by definition, do not endure. God is not always happy, always sad, always angry, always anything emotionally. It has nothing to do with His immutability or aseity. The Bible says very little about the nature of eternity; it is wholly about the interaction between the Creator and His creation regarding His Son - the intersection between the eternal and the temporal, the divine Immortal and the mortal, the sacred and the profane. I lay value where scripture lays value. I posted scripture to support what I said (in almost every post). I did not receive anything close to parity. You not only contradicted scripture and denied I posted what I posted, you contradicted your own post(s).


The op expressed a given view of "Partial Limited Atonement," and opens the matter up for discussion. I did so. Atonement is not synonymous with redemption. The latter is a subset of the former. Atonement has to do with restoration and reconciliation, not merely the purchase of a slave, especially not when God owns all anyway - whether enslaved or free. While debate ensues over the matter of sufficiency and efficiency, the fact some and not all are restored and reconciled is self-evident. No human could do any of it.

The filthy rag said to the immaculate Creator, "Let me make you feel better and fix your problem for you."

 

[Arial]

The op expressed a given view of "Partial Limited Atonement," and opens the matter up for discussion. I did so. Atonement is not synonymous with redemption. The latter is a subset of the former. Atonement has to do with restoration and reconciliation, not merely the purchase of a slave, especially not when God owns all anyway - whether enslaved or free.

A redeemer redeems. And if a redeemer redeems, he is redeeming from something. Jesus gave Himself as a Redeemer to redeem a people from bondage. Not to men. But to sin. He redeemed a people from a kingdom---the kingdom of darkness--- bringing them into a different kingdom---the kingdom of God. His giving of Himself as a substitute for the one in the kingdom of darkness, and in bondage to sin, is the redemption aspect of salvation.

The atonement is made to God and His justice, by taking upon Himself the penal code of sin, which is death. The suffering on the cross, the humiliation on the way to the cross, the death and shame of dying in the manner of the worst of sinners in that culture, satisfied the penal code for sin. Therefore Christ as Redeemer atones for the sins of His people. One is not a subset of the other. They are together.

 

[His clay]

Looks like I'll finally have some time today to interact here. I'll start with reading first.

 

[His clay]

Right. If Christ did make atonement for all of Adam's posterity, and all were redeemed, none would ever be in hell. Just by the simple fact, there will be those who are in hell proves a limited atonement.

Right. That would almost say the Covenant of grace was between the Father and man. But after death, they are given another chance. But scripture teaches it was between the Father and the Son. And Jesus said it is finished.

Oh yes.

I'm replying to this because of the idea of limited atonement. I fully agree that it doesn't really matter what side of the fence you are on (Cal or Arm), you are dealing with a limited atonement. The Calvinist will typically see the scope as limited, but the merit of Christ's death is unlimited, and the efficacy of the atonement is only limited by God's intention. The Arminian (loosely defined) will hold to an unlimited atonement in scope, but the atonement will be limited in its efficacy. This is due to the idea of libertarian freedom inserted in the theology. The efficacy is limited in that it makes "provision" but then leaves the final efficacy to the will of man. It makes the potential for salvation, but it does not follow fully through. Like the Calvinist, the Arminian also holds to the unlimited merit of the sacrifice of Christ.

Only the universalist holds to a truly unlimited atonement. For this reason, I think that a better term would be helpful in describing the L in TULIP.

Key words: scope, merit, efficacy.

 

[His clay]

I know you have heard these arguments before but,
My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; 2 and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. 1 John 1:1-2.

The atoning sacrifice removed our (the elect) sins, he took God's wrath in our place. God's anger is appeased toward his sheep.

Seeing John is writing to believers (My little children) knowing they are sanctified in Christ, even so, they can and will sin and since Christ was in our stead as we confess our sins we are forgiven. That's a blessed assurance. And how much more knowing that all the elect from the world. Until the end of the age. 1 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not willing for any to perish, but for all to come to repentance.



I would think so.

Like I said, I'm sure you have heard the debate before. The more I think about it the more clear it becomes. I'm interested to hear other replies.

I have seen this argument used before, and I'll take a quick moment to critique it. The fact that John is writing to believers only demonstrates his audience; it doesn't limit the content addressed to those believers. In other words, believers can be told of unbelievers, can be told of themselves in a saved state, can be told of themselves in an unsaved state, etc. It's just the same as when parent addresses his/her child. It doesn't mean that then the parent can't speak of other children, or of rocks and sticks outside the home, or of roller coasters, etc.

 

[His clay]

I don't think of 1 John 2 meaning all sin including unbelief, for all in Adam is paid for on the cross as plausible, for the simple reason that it can't be since a great many go to hell. Jesus either paid a sin debt or He did not. And if He did not, it could only be because He did not intend to. The atonement is is not limited in scope---it goes to all the world, and could have paid for all sins----it is limited to its intent. To save those who the Father is giving to the Son. That being said, I see how a person could be confused by the statement in 1 John. But we know what did happen and is still happening today. Some inherit the kingdom, some go into hell and pay the sin debt themselves.

I agree with @Carbon . Ouch!! The rationality in the it the "distinction"/"exception" (if that is what you mean. I am not sure if that is what you refer to there or the double jeopardy argument) is rational according to the information we are given in the scriptures. IMO there is nothing raitional is saying Jesus died so that sin and unbelief cannot condemn a person and then have the majority of persons condemned for their sin and unbelief. So something else has to be true.

I get the idea of the gospel going to every tribe, tongue, people, and nation. So the pervasiveness of the gospel is one thing, but that it not what I am speaking of when I speak of the scope being limited. I'm much more inclined to see scope and intent (in Calvinism) as intricately connected. In other words, the scope of those He intends to save.

"if that is what you mean" That's not really what I mean, and I addressed this earlier, so I won't restated. After posting this, I'll look for the post # and then edit this post to include where I addressed it. Edited: post #15.

The main issue that I have with your response, is not the reasoning, but the lack of scriptural exegesis. This is where the roadblock is. What does scripture explicitly say? I get it though, there is a certain rationality in theology; but my main concern is exegetical theology because of the authority issue (thus says the Lord).

 

[His clay]

I agree. If there is total depravity, then for any to be saved and not have that salvation based on any merits or demerits in the person, there must be unconditional election.

And if there is unconditional election the the atonement is limited in its intent.

And if there are these three there must be a grace that accomplishes its purpose.

And if you have all of these it stands as a necessity that those elected, brought to Christ and given to Him by grace, and for whom He paid the penalty and became the satisfaction to God, will be preserved in perseverance.

I agree that reasoning like this makes sense. However, it is not exegetical. You didn't quote or work through a particular or group of passages. When I speak of the exegetical process, I'm speaking of audience considerations of a particular book, cultural context, structure of the book, and then how the overall structure of the book contributes to the immediate context of the verse or verses in question, and then a consideration of the original languages in each of the previous and in the meaning of the passage itself, etc.

 

[His clay]

Ok, I've made it to post #16 (for my own reference), and I'll need to do some looking as I want to adequately interact with @Josheb 's comment about the atonement (discussion over original language terms).

 

[Arial]

I agree that reasoning like this makes sense. However, it is not exegetical. You didn't quote or work through a particular or group of passages. When I speak of the exegetical process, I'm speaking of audience considerations of a particular book, cultural context, structure of the book, and then how the overall structure of the book contributes to the immediate context of the verse or verses in question, and then a consideration of the original languages in each of the previous and in the meaning of the passage itself, etc.

I agree with this if fleshing out the doctrines themselves were the purpose of my post. And if you would like, I will do so and according to the criteria you give. However, what was being addressed was the question of how one could believe only some of the TULIP if those doctrines expressed in the acronym were true.

 

[makesends]

I get the idea of the gospel going to every tribe, tongue, people, and nation. So the pervasiveness of the gospel is one thing, but that it not what I am speaking of when I speak of the scope being limited. I'm much more inclined to see scope and intent (in Calvinism) as intricately connected. In other words, the scope of those He intends to save.

"if that is what you mean" That's not really what I mean, and I addressed this earlier, so I won't restated. After posting this, I'll look for the post # and then edit this post to include where I addressed it. Edited: post #15.

The main issue that I have with your response, is not the reasoning, but the lack of scriptural exegesis. This is where the roadblock is. What does scripture explicitly say? I get it though, there is a certain rationality in theology; but my main concern is exegetical theology because of the authority issue (thus says the Lord).

This is a little OT, but just occurred to me, that sometimes we argue against the wrong thing: When the opponent wants to talk about man being (in Calvinism) blamed for what God has already condemned him for, the Calvinist is mistaken to argue at that point about double-predestination. God condemns the lost by their disobedience, even by their disbelief, not by their lack of knowledge/understanding.

It is a matter of the will. Disobedience and disbelief are at the heart, the same thing, or of the same root, sin. But it is a temptation to argue about double-predestination, because the Calvinist delights in the sovereignty of God, and God's absolute right to do as he will with his own creation, and to be just to do so.

 

[Carbon]

I'm replying to this because of the idea of limited atonement. I fully agree that it doesn't really matter what side of the fence you are on (Cal or Arm), you are dealing with a limited atonement. The Calvinist will typically see the scope as limited, but the merit of Christ's death is unlimited, and the efficacy of the atonement is only limited by God's intention. The Arminian (loosely defined) will hold to an unlimited atonement in scope, but the atonement will be limited in its efficacy. This is due to the idea of libertarian freedom inserted in the theology. The efficacy is limited in that it makes "provision" but then leaves the final efficacy to the will of man. It makes the potential for salvation, but it does not follow fully through. Like the Calvinist, the Arminian also holds to the unlimited merit of the sacrifice of Christ.

Only the universalist holds to a truly unlimited atonement. For this reason, I think that a better term would be helpful in describing the L in TULIP.

Key words: scope, merit, efficacy.

Definite atonement.

Considering your reply here, isnt it the Arminians who really limit the atonement?

 

[makesends]

Definite atonement.

Considering your reply here, isnt it the Arminians who really limit the atonement?

I thought that was what he was getting at —that the Arminian use was better than some, but still short of facts.

 

[Josheb]

..........isnt it the Arminians who really limit the atonement?

...and God?

If God cannot coerce salvation and God must wait on faith professed by the flesh, then that is limiting. Claiming God limits Himself (absent any scripture to that effect) does not change the fact the synergist view is easily more limiting of both God and atonement than the monergist alternative(s).

 

[makesends]

...and God?

If God cannot coerce salvation and God must wait on faith professed by the flesh, then that is limiting. Claiming God limits Himself (absent any scripture to that effect) does not change the fact the synergist view is easily more limiting of both God and atonement than the monergist alternative(s).

I've got a bit of a problem with the word, "coerce", there. God doesn't coerce the first birth, but only causes it irrevocably and without consultation of anybody's will except his own. So the second birth. It's not a question of forcing something to happen against the will of the recipient. The will itself is changed.

 

[Arial]

I get the idea of the gospel going to every tribe, tongue, people, and nation. So the pervasiveness of the gospel is one thing, but that it not what I am speaking of when I speak of the scope being limited. I'm much more inclined to see scope and intent (in Calvinism) as intricately connected. In other words, the scope of those He intends to save.

"if that is what you mean" That's not really what I mean, and I addressed this earlier, so I won't restated. After posting this, I'll look for the post # and then edit this post to include where I addressed it. Edited: post #15.

The main issue that I have with your response, is not the reasoning, but the lack of scriptural exegesis. This is where the roadblock is. What does scripture explicitly say? I get it though, there is a certain rationality in theology; but my main concern is exegetical theology because of the authority issue (thus says the Lord).

To reiterate the clarification of the term "limited atonement". It is more accurately stated by "particular redemption" or "intentional atonement." It is the "limited" that causes the most confusion and the loudest outcry.

We all start out in the same boat in Adam---sinners who sin. (Romans 5:12-21; Romans 1:18-23; Romans 3:9)

The Bible teaches that the atoning work of Christ was done with a definite purpose. Rev 5:9 And they sang a new song, sayig, "worthy are you to take the scroll and open its seals, for your were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation,

To save people from their sins. Matt 1:21 and many other passages.

He lays down His life for His sheep. (John 10:15) and that His sheep are chosen by God fro before the foundation of the world. (Eph 1:4)

Jesus says they are the same ones the Father gives to Him and that He will lose none of them. (John 6:37-40)

That Jesus came for a specific reason is seen in the OT. (Is 53:8,11-12) Many scriptures speak of an atonement the was specific as to who it covered---God's people, that it was substitutionary in nature (1 Peter 2:24; 2 Cor 5:21; Romans 3:23) and that He actually accomplished what God intended it to do, which is to justify many. ( Christ did not die to make justification a possibility. He died to actually justify those He died for. Not to make them savable but to save. (Gal 2:16; Romans 3:24; Romans 8:30) If Jesus actually stood in our place, bore our sins on the cross, it must secure a real salvation for those He died for. If it only makes salvation a possibility, it is not substitutionary. If Jesus acted as a real and true substitute for those He died for, then all He died for will be saved. To say that He died as a substitute in the place of all sinners but not all will be saved, is a contradiction.

There are four words used concerning the atonement:ransom, reconciliation, propitiation, and substitute. Every one of them speak of the atonement as having actually accomplished something in His death.

If one holds to a truly unlimited atonement, we have universalism. If we hold to unlimited atonement but deny universal salvation, we have a redemption that leaves men not actually redeemed and not totally free, and a reconciliation that leaves us still estranged from God a propitiation that still leaves us under His wrath, and a substitution that has double jeopardy. Every aspect of the atonement becomes only a possibility and the only way it becomes a reality relies upon man.

And that is not what the Bible teaches. It teaches Col 2:13-14 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncercimcision of your glesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses.

 

[His clay]

To reiterate the clarification of the term "limited atonement". It is more accurately stated by "particular redemption" or "intentional atonement." It is the "limited" that causes the most confusion and the loudest outcry.

We all start out in the same boat in Adam---sinners who sin. (Romans 5:12-21; Romans 1:18-23; Romans 3:9)

The Bible teaches that the atoning work of Christ was done with a definite purpose. Rev 5:9 And they sang a new song, sayig, "worthy are you to take the scroll and open its seals, for your were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation,

To save people from their sins. Matt 1:21 and many other passages.

He lays down His life for His sheep. (John 10:15) and that His sheep are chosen by God fro before the foundation of the world. (Eph 1:4)

Jesus says they are the same ones the Father gives to Him and that He will lose none of them. (John 6:37-40)

That Jesus came for a specific reason is seen in the OT. (Is 53:8,11-12) Many scriptures speak of an atonement the was specific as to who it covered---God's people, that it was substitutionary in nature (1 Peter 2:24; 2 Cor 5:21; Romans 3:23) and that He actually accomplished what God intended it to do, which is to justify many. ( Christ did not die to make justification a possibility. He died to actually justify those He died for. Not to make them savable but to save. (Gal 2:16; Romans 3:24; Romans 8:30) If Jesus actually stood in our place, bore our sins on the cross, it must secure a real salvation for those He died for. If it only makes salvation a possibility, it is not substitutionary. If Jesus acted as a real and true substitute for those He died for, then all He died for will be saved. To say that He died as a substitute in the place of all sinners but not all will be saved, is a contradiction.

There are four words used concerning the atonement:ransom, reconciliation, propitiation, and substitute. Every one of them speak of the atonement as having actually accomplished something in His death.

If one holds to a truly unlimited atonement, we have universalism. If we hold to unlimited atonement but deny universal salvation, we have a redemption that leaves men not actually redeemed and not totally free, and a reconciliation that leaves us still estranged from God a propitiation that still leaves us under His wrath, and a substitution that has double jeopardy. Every aspect of the atonement becomes only a possibility and the only way it becomes a reality relies upon man.

And that is not what the Bible teaches. It teaches Col 2:13-14 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncercimcision of your glesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses.

While I prefer to read things in the thread chronologically and respond accordingly, this post is deserving of a response. I really appreciate the work and your thoughts in putting the various parts together. I have great agreement with many parts, and I've stated many of the same things not too long ago. And I, again, appreciate how you have put all of these thoughts together. Thanks for taking the time to write this.

 

[Josheb]

I've got a bit of a problem with the word, "coerce", there. God doesn't coerce the first birth...

Prove it.

Start with the fact no one initiated their coming to God and asked to be saved before they knew such a thing existed. Noah did not ask to be saved. Abraham did not ask to be saved. Jacob did not ask to be saved (nor did Esau). Moses did not ask to be saved (neither did Pharoah ). David did not ask to be saved. Isaiah did not ask to be saved. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul - NONE of them asked to be saved. God picked them long before they were picked and then He called them and commanded them, and it was only after He did so that He offered any of them any choice.

Deuteronomy 30:19-20
"I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants, by loving the LORD your God, by obeying His voice, and by holding fast to Him; for this is your life and the length of your days, that you may live in the land which the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give them."

The choice was not offered until God had already chosen them 400 years before their existence, already liberated them, already killed all but two of their fathers and mothers (coercively, I might add), already brought them to the promised land. God had already established His God-initiated covenant AND brought them to the promised land (a foreshadowing of salvation) before He asked them to choose life or death. He did not ask a single one of them if they wanted any of it until then. New life precedes faith, and both are gifts of God, not works of the (sinful) flesh.

Prove God does not coerce the first birth and do it starting with the facts above.

 

[makesends]

You and I are in agreement, then, it seems, except for by definition of the word, "coerce".

To me, coercion is the forcing of compliance by threat or intimidation, which is not at all the same as acting upon the subject to cause this or that to happen. If man's will is not involved except passively at the most, being the recipient of God's grace, then God has not coerced anything, but only caused it. God does not save by intimidation or threat.

co·er·cion
[kōˈərSHən, kōˈərZH(ə)n]
noun

1. the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats:
   "our problem cannot be solved by any form of coercion but only by agreement"
   Similar:
   force
   compulsion
   constraint
   duress
   oppression
   enforcement
   harassment
   intimidation
   threats
   insistence
   demand
   arm-twisting
   pressure
   pressurization
   influence

 

[Josheb]

You and I are in agreement, then, it seems, except for by definition of the word, "coerce".

To me, coercion is the forcing of compliance by threat or intimidation, which is not at all the same as acting upon the subject to cause this or that to happen. If man's will is not involved except passively at the most, being the recipient of God's grace, then God has not coerced anything, but only caused it. God does not save by intimidation or threat.

co·er·cion
[kōˈərSHən, kōˈərZH(ə)n]
noun

1. the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats:
   "our problem cannot be solved by any form of coercion but only by agreement"
   Similar:
   force
   compulsion
   constraint
   duress
   oppression
   enforcement
   harassment
   intimidation
   threats
   insistence
   demand
   arm-twisting
   pressure
   pressurization
   influence

hehehe....

It's not me to whom that should be posted. It's the synergists. They are the does saying God cannot coerce salvation. The distinction between "can" and "does" should also be considered. So too should the over-generalization of "anything," because salvation is all we're talking about here. God coerces a lot of things and the type of causality to which you subscribe (because we've talked about this many times) is compulsory, enforced and enforcing, intimidation, threatening, insistent, demanding, pressuring, and influential. All laws are that way, especially divine edicts like, "Don't eat or you'll die" (knowing beforehand all are going to die) as part of a foreknown will, purpose, and plan. I'm pretty sure the millions who died in the flood felt coerced. Same goes for the 5000 swallowed by the suddenly opening gaping hole in the earth. Tell the guy standing at the edge of the fiery lake the moment before he's tossed in it is not forced, compelled, done under duress, oppressive, enforced, intimidating, threatening, insistent, demanding, pressured and.... coerced. "No, dude, that's just your fears frightening you, not God. No one's forcing anything on you." shove

We're saved by grace. Left to our own devices we'd all be dead, still be dead, and still be dead awaiting a singularly deadly end. It's the synergists who think coercion is relevant. The monergist considers coercion a red herring. Do you remember the analogy of the unconscious drowning victim resuscitated without giving consent? Those dead in sin cannot give consent. It's beyond their ability. God could put it in the hands/will of the dead sinner, force salvation on the dead, or take the third option and liberate the dead man from his dead state.... by grace. Btw, charis is sometimes conjugated as a forceful imperative, not mere kindness.

The entire premise is a smoke screen, and when it is used in protest against Calvinists it's like the ever-existing accusation of "robot theology." It's a red herring that has nothing whatsoever to do with monergist/Calvinist soteriology.

I've got a bit of a problem with the word, "coerce", there. God doesn't coerce the first birth....

Prove it............

You and I are in agreement, then, it seems, except for by definition of the word, "coerce"........

I hope that's now settled.

...and God?

If God cannot coerce salvation and God must wait on faith professed by the flesh, then that is limiting. Claiming God limits Himself (absent any scripture to that effect) does not change the fact the synergist view is easily more limiting of both God and atonement than the monergist alternative(s).

Cannot

God doesn't coerce the first birth............

Does not.

Big difference. God can. He does not. To say He cannot limits God.

Considering your reply here, isnt it the Arminians who really limit the atonement?

That was the point being discussed.

...and God?

If God cannot coerce salvation and God must wait on faith professed by the flesh, then that is limiting. Claiming God limits Himself (absent any scripture to that effect) does not change the fact the synergist view is easily more limiting of both God and atonement than the monergist alternative(s).

The monergist alternative is grace alone, not coercion . Partial atonement is not coerced. Sin is coercive, not God. I hope this clears up any miscommunication, confusion, or remaining areas of concern or disagreement.

 

[Arial]

While I prefer to read things in the thread chronologically and respond accordingly, this post is deserving of a response. I really appreciate the work and your thoughts in putting the various parts together. I have great agreement with many parts, and I've stated many of the same things not too long ago. And I, again, appreciate how you have put all of these thoughts together. Thanks for taking the time to write this.

Since the post you are responding to evidently is not what you are looking for, and none of my other posts were, I guess I do not know what you are looking for. "Scope", "merit", efficacy", does not clarify it for me. The scope of the atonement has been addressed, there is no merit, and efficacy has been addressed. God predestines those he elects to come to Christ and brings it about, and the atonement is made for them.