Partial LA?

[His clay]

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.

"Since the post you are responding to evidently is not what you are looking for, and none of my other posts were" I don't know how you got that from my last response (post 96). My last response was intended as an encouragement, and I wrote it as such. Your post was excellent.

"there is no merit" In this thread thus far, when I speak of merit, it is with respect to the merit of Christ's sacrifice. In post #84 I wrote, "the merit of Christ's death is unlimited." I was not addressing the merit depraved people bring to the table.

 

[makesends]

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.

But isn't that a bit like equivocating? "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." At least, in my way of thinking, what God intends is all that ever happens —if God intends to save only the Elect, and he does so by Christ's atonement, then the scope of it is only the intention of it.

But maybe you mean something else by "scope", such as capability or worthiness. Because if Christ's sacrifice was able to save even one, it could save all. I guess I'm not sure what you mean by, "It goes to all the world"; I'm not at all sure I agree with that.

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
God can do anything. Even lose a creature to sin, feel that loss, and express it. He is not a robot.

makesends said:
I don't deny God grief.

makesends said:
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.

Josh, please have the mods to correct the above (from post #81) I have underlined. The way it is done, you appear to quote me as saying it, rather than only having quoted you as saying it.

 

[Arial]

But isn't that a bit like equivocating? "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." At least, in my way of thinking, what God intends is all that ever happens —if God intends to save only the Elect, and he does so by Christ's atonement, then the scope of it is only the intention of it.

But maybe you mean something else by "scope", such as capability or worthiness. Because if Christ's sacrifice was able to save even one, it could save all. I guess I'm not sure what you mean by, "It goes to all the world"; I'm not at all sure I agree with that.

1 John 2:2 says He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins and the sins of the whole world. Since we know from the Scriptures that not all have had their sins paid for, or if they have and they still go to hell, we have double jeopardy, if we take "whole world" to mean every individual, we have either universalism or double jeopardy.

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

A propitiation is something done by one person to make peace between them and another. To reconcile the two with each other. In this case it is Jesus giving Himself as a substitute to reconcile believers with God. If reconciliation is made through the atonement then, if "whole world" means every individual who ever lived and ever will live, then they are now reconciled to God and their sins forgiven. If they are not, and they are not, and "whole world" still means every individual, then it was not an actual propitiation, but a potential propitiation. Outside of Reformed theology, in the free will choice doctrines, it is only actual for those who choose Christ, therefore the work of Christ on the cross does not depend on Christ, but on man's will.

So----the "our sins" in the passage refers to John's audience----believers and "sins of the whole world" is something different, applies to something else other than believers. The "our" is the definite/ intent portion of the statement. The "whole world" is the scope of its power, but not the scope of its intent.

In addition, there is another way "whole world" can be seen, and I believe both are true and are not mutually exclusive. And that is that in the consummation of our salvation, the entire world and every individual in it, has been redeemed from mortality and corruption. (Romans 8:18-23) I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.

Rev 21:1-4 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away."

 

[Arial]

"Since the post you are responding to evidently is not what you are looking for, and none of my other posts were" I don't know how you got that from my last response (post 96). My last response was intended as an encouragement, and I wrote it as such. Your post was excellent.

"there is no merit" In this thread thus far, when I speak of merit, it is with respect to the merit of Christ's sacrifice. In post #84 I wrote, "the merit of Christ's death is unlimited." I was not addressing the merit depraved people bring to the table.

I just thought that I had failed to hit the nail your were aiming towards on the head. Not that you did not like or appreciate my post. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

[Josheb]

Josh, please have the mods to correct the above (from post #81) I have underlined. The way it is done, you appear to quote me as saying it, rather than only having quoted you as saying it.

Sure thing.

@Arial (or any other mod)... Post 81 mistakenly attributes "God can do anything. Even lose a creature to sin, feel that loss, and express it. He is not a robot," to @makesends when I was the one who originally said that. Can you stick a "Josh said:" in Post 81 to correct that mistake so our brother is not misrepresented. Thx

 

[Arial]

Sure thing.

@Arial (or any other mod)... Post 81 mistakenly attributes "God can do anything. Even lose a creature to sin, feel that loss, and express it. He is not a robot," to @makesends when I was the one who originally said that. Can you stick a "Josh said:" in Post 81 to correct that mistake so our brother is not misrepresented. Thx

I am unable to edit the name banner (in orange)so put an edit note by the quoted line.

 

[His clay]

I just thought that I had failed to hit the nail your were aiming towards on the head. Not that you did not like or appreciate my post. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Thank you for taking the time to explain.

I see what you are saying. I do fully admit that I am extremely hard to please when it comes to online scriptural exegesis. I've had too many years of Greek and Hebrew. Too many classes have shown me what it means to translate and go verse by verse in the original languages. I'm very appreciative of my teachers and the tool of knowing the original languages, knowing the basics of hermeneutics, etc. Without your knowing the original languages, the best you could probably do is present a contextual case (within the book's structure & within the immediate passage's structure that contextualizes the verse in question) for your understanding of the verse.

If you wish to zero in and, Robin Hood style, target the bullseye, then I would say the underlined portion above is your best bet. If I have missed where you have already done the previously, I am sorry. I still have not read the whole thread. If I have missed it, then simply give me a post #, and I'll definitely give it some thought and consideration. Thanks.

 

[Ladodgers6]

The word "cause" is too vague, and because of the ambiguity it can be misleading.
Here is my attempt at spelling out the nuances of the word "cause." And I warn of the causal conflation fallacy.

https://christcentered.community.forum/threads/responsibility-and-causation.55/

It's not misleading at all. Either Adam sinned by his own free-will or he was forced, coerced to sin, follow? Now, if Adam did not sin by his own free-will, that makes God the author of sin and evil, get it?

 

[makesends]

It's not misleading at all. Either Adam sinned by his own free-will or he was forced, coerced to sin, follow? Now, if Adam did not sin by his own free-will, that makes God the author of sin and evil, get it?

Why include the word, "free"?

 

[Bob Carabbio]

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.

BINGO!! simple logic. "Calvinism" not required for that conclusion. That Calvinism agrees is good.

Right. That would almost say the Covenant of grace was between the Father and man. But after death, they are given another chance.

As Roman Catholicism teaches with their "Purgatorial sanctification" fantasy. Of course Catholics teach that folks in Purgatory are "Already saved", just not "good enough" yet. Catholics don't speak "Christian" understandably. They (like Calvinism) make up their own definitions of things.

But scripture teaches it was between the Father and the Son. And Jesus said it is finished.

And so it IS.

 

[Ladodgers6]

Why include the word, "free"?

Because if it's not free, then its something out of the control of the creature/human. In other words, it's not their doing, that causes them to sin, but some external source coercing them to sin. Understand?

 

[makesends]

Because if it's not free, then its something out of the control of the creature/human. In other words, it's not their doing, that causes them to sin, but some external source coercing them to sin. Understand?

Does a robot have a will?

 

[Josheb]

Because if it's not free, then its something out of the control of the creature/human. In other words, it's not their doing, that causes them to sin, but some external source coercing them to sin. Understand?

That is too discrete, too dichotomous. Sin causes disobedience. Disobedience is sin. Sin causes us to sin. It was not that way in the beginning. Adam had not sin in him by which he might sin more. He was the last sinless sinner. Through his disobedience sin entered the world and death came to all men because all sin. Since that day (Genesis 3:6-7) every single human has had the problem of sin begetting sin - except on: Jesus the Messiah.

Romans 7:8-20
But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead. I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died; and this commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me; for sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good. Therefore, did that which is good become a cause of death for me? May it never be! Rather it was sin, in order that it might be shown to be sin by effecting my death through that which is good, so that through the commandment sin would become utterly sinful. For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin. For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate. But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is good. So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me.

• Sin takes the opportunity to produce coveting (lust).
• Sin deceives us.
• Sin kills us.
• Sin becomes utterly sinful.
• We're sold in bondage to sin.
• We don't do what we want to to.
• We do what we do not want to do.
• It's not me doing it, but sin dwelling in me.
• Nothing good dwells in my flesh.
• I am willing to do good, but cannot do it.

Paul wrote that after a few decades serving Christ as an apostle. What hope has the unregenerate man who does not have the covering blood of Christ and the Spirit dwelling within to overrule the sin-saturated flesh?

Does a robot have a will?

No, but that is a false analogy because we're willing accomplices who act in ignorance against our own eternal self-interests to meet temporal desires.

James 1:14-15
But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death.


This is what makes the problem so insidious. This is also what makes the problem unsolvable for the sinful unregenerate. He likes what he does. If it were not for the choosing of God, His Call, His hauling us to Christ, His work saving us we'd arise each day to pick up where we left of the day before because the work of sin's carrying us away and enticing our lusts ends only at the grave. Apart from Jesus we can do nothing. Even Arminius understood this.

" In this state, the free will of man towards the true good is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent, and weakened; but it is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost. And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace. For Christ has said, "Without me ye can do nothing." St. Augustine, after having diligently meditated upon each word in this passage, speaks thus: "Christ does not say, without me ye can do but Little; neither does He say, without me ye can do any Arduous Thing, nor without me ye can do it with difficulty. But he says, without me ye can do Nothing! Nor does he say, without me ye cannot complete any thing; but without me ye can do Nothing." That this may be made more manifestly to appear, we will separately consider the mind, the affections or will, and the capability, as contra-distinguished from them, as well as the life itself of an unregenerate man." (Disputation 11; Article VII)



This is where sound soteriology starts.

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
Does a robot have a will?

No, but that is a false analogy because we're willing accomplices who act in ignorance against our own eternal self-interests to meet temporal desires.

Not sure that ignorance is a necessary part of your description here. But either way, I don't see how being willing accomplices who act against our own eternal self-interests to meet temporal desires makes it a false analogy. If human will is free, and the will of other willed creatures is not free, then I can see the importance of the term, "free", but if the human will is as any other will, I see no need for the term, "free".

Or, by "ignorance", do you refer to our ignorance concerning God's decree?


But my reason for the question is to make us think just what is the meaning of "free" in the term, "free will". Is the difference between us and other willed creatures that we are able to do something uncaused, or simply that we are able to consider quite a bit more?

Demons do as they please, I think, as much as they are able, and as much as it is God's decree that they do, willing their own deformity and destruction upon themselves in their desire to wreak corruption on the rest of God's creation. They are slaves to sin. Not that much difference from the unregenerate believer. I see nothing to show that they are able to do anything uncaused.

Angels, elect angels, that is, are also able to do as God decrees, and as God commands, and either are unable to do otherwise, or are never willing to do otherwise, and I would consider them free only in the sense they do as they please. There is nothing there to indicate to me that what they please is by way of any lack of causation. They seem to have choice.

Dogs and chimpanzees do as they please, and have wills, but not as much intelligence, it would seem. They have, I think, innocence, so that even the most corrupted and malevolent of them is not sinning, but acting according to his precedent causes —which we term, "instinct". Is that really any different from our wills except in degree of ability to consider, and in degree of desire for what is instinctive?

 

[Ladodgers6]

That is too discrete, too dichotomous. Sin causes disobedience. Disobedience is sin. Sin causes us to sin. It was not that way in the beginning. Adam had not sin in him by which he might sin more. He was the last sinless sinner. Through his disobedience sin entered the world and death came to all men because all sin. Since that day (Genesis 3:6-7) every single human has had the problem of sin begetting sin - except on: Jesus the Messiah.

Romans 7:8-20
But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead. I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died; and this commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me; for sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good. Therefore, did that which is good become a cause of death for me? May it never be! Rather it was sin, in order that it might be shown to be sin by effecting my death through that which is good, so that through the commandment sin would become utterly sinful. For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin. For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate. But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is good. So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me.

• Sin takes the opportunity to produce coveting (lust).
• Sin deceives us.
• Sin kills us.
• Sin becomes utterly sinful.
• We're sold in bondage to sin.
• We don't do what we want to to.
• We do what we do not want to do.
• It's not me doing it, but sin dwelling in me.
• Nothing good dwells in my flesh.
• I am willing to do good, but cannot do it.

Paul wrote that after a few decades serving Christ as an apostle. What hope has the unregenerate man who does not have the covering blood of Christ and the Spirit dwelling within to overrule the sin-saturated flesh?

No, but that is a false analogy because we're willing accomplices who act in ignorance against our own eternal self-interests to meet temporal desires.

James 1:14-15
But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death.


This is what makes the problem so insidious. This is also what makes the problem unsolvable for the sinful unregenerate. He likes what he does. If it were not for the choosing of God, His Call, His hauling us to Christ, His work saving us we'd arise each day to pick up where we left of the day before because the work of sin's carrying us away and enticing our lusts ends only at the grave. Apart from Jesus we can do nothing. Even Arminius understood this.

" In this state, the free will of man towards the true good is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent, and weakened; but it is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost. And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace. For Christ has said, "Without me ye can do nothing." St. Augustine, after having diligently meditated upon each word in this passage, speaks thus: "Christ does not say, without me ye can do but Little; neither does He say, without me ye can do any Arduous Thing, nor without me ye can do it with difficulty. But he says, without me ye can do Nothing! Nor does he say, without me ye cannot complete any thing; but without me ye can do Nothing." That this may be made more manifestly to appear, we will separately consider the mind, the affections or will, and the capability, as contra-distinguished from them, as well as the life itself of an unregenerate man." (Disputation 11; Article VII)



This is where sound soteriology starts.

Look Civic you are missing the point here. For even as fallen progeny of Adam; sinners choose willingly to sin, though with believers they struggle with sin as Paul does in Romans 7. Why do sinners struggle with sin? Because we are still in these bodies of death. It's the flesh raging war against the Spirit. As Luther once wrote we are "simul lustus et peccator".

But I am not talking about that. What I am talking about is before the Fall, before sin entered through One Man's Disobedience. Adam's created state in which God made him. God sanctioned a Covenant of Works with Adam to fulfill, basically to fill earth with God's Glory. Adam possessed the moral ability to obey or disobey God through his given libertarian free-will. Without this faculty Adam would not have the means to fulfill the command. Which in turn would make God the author of evil, not Adam.

For an example, if God command Adam to climb a ladder to fulfill his command, and God kicked it out from underneath him; that would make Gd the author of evil.

So, I am speaking about the unfallen state of Adam. Now if you suggest that Adam did not have the ability to choose freely, and was coerced to do it then the punishment is unjust, correct?​

​

 

[Ladodgers6]

Why include the word, "free"?

Because libertarian free-will in the Garden Temple was given to Adam by God so that he could "FREELY" choose to obey or disobey God. And by God endowing Adam with the ability to choose freely. He either would fulfill God's command of the Covenant and live or disobey it and die by his own actions. If God doesn't give Adan this ability to choose freely either way. Then Adam can't choose freely because of the void faculty to choose. So, then God who created this way without the ability to choose freely, become the author of sin.

 

[Josheb]

makesends said:
Does a robot have a will?


Not sure that ignorance is a necessary part of your description here.

Do God-denying sinners believe in sin? How can a person be aware of something they intrinsically deny.

But either way, I don't see how being willing accomplices who act against our own eternal self-interests to meet temporal desires makes it a false analogy.

They are not robots. As far as I can tell (and I have not read every post) no one has asserted robot theology and it is not a condition of Limited Atonement (LA). The question can be asked simply to cover that base, but now that it's been addressed the premise has no place in the conversation. I'm sure @Ladodgers6 will agree.

If human will is free...

It is not.

I just spent about week covering this matter with our brother, @FutureAndAHope, in another forum. There are very real limitations on the human will and all of them are exacerbated by sin.

If the human will is free, and the will of other willed creatures is not free, then I can see the importance of the term, "free", but if the human will is as any other will, I see no need for the term, "free".

No, because there are other options. The will can have both agency and be controlled, or the will can have liberty but not be (wholly) free.

Or, by "ignorance", do you refer to our ignorance concerning God's decree?

I mean all ignorance in all of its myriad forms. Sinful, unregenerate humanity is ignorant and ignorant in many ways. One of those ignorances is the ignorance of itself. I made my living helping people become more aware of themselves. I can unequivocally state humanity is ignorant of many things. When Paul writes of his doing what he does not want to do and not doing what he does not want to do he is necessarily writing about the regenerate state because when Paul was in the unregenerate state he thought murder and conspiracy to murder were acceptable.

But my reason for the question is to make us think just what is the meaning of "free" in the term, "free will". Is the difference between us and other willed creatures that we are able to do something uncaused, or simply that we are able to consider quite a bit more?

Great questions. I, personally, like to start with four basics:

• All humanity, individually and collectively, has sinned.
• The will of sinful humanity cannot overrule God's will.
• The will of sinful humanity cannot overrule the limitations of creation (one of which is ignorance).
• Sin has had an adverse effect on humanity and the will of sinful man cannot overrule sin and its deadly and enslaving effects.

In other words, the will of sinful man is not free. Yes, it has a certain amount of agency, an ability to exercise itself but only within the limitations stated above. We should use the word "liberty," not "free." I don't have the time this minute to go through the Hebrew but the Hebrew word for "freewill" is better translated "voluntary," AND it is MUCH different than the two Hebrew words for "free" and "will." In other words, when the Hebrew says "freewill," it is not saying, "free will."

Demons do as they please...

No they do not. And demons are off-topic. Focus. We're talking about LA, and digressively about the salvation from sin, death, and wrath that is available only to humans. There is no atonement for demons (or angels). We're not talking about dogs, chimpanzees, or any other animal (all of which, along with angels and demons, have their own God-given and God-limited degree of volitional agency. None have been offered salvation. That is the sole domain of those created in God's image.

Stick to humanity. The volitional agency of sinful humanity is limited. It is influenced and controlled by many things BUT within those limiting controls there exists a degree of liberty with which humans can and do choose.

Reformed soteriology (both monergist and synergist) teaches that liberty does not extend to the ability to choose God for the purpose of salvation without God's sovereign aid. That is the doctrine of Total Depravity. In Calvinist terms that is typically expressed by saying a person follows his "nature." Sinful man follows the sinful nature and even on the occasion he does something morally "good" it is of no salvific values because it is always, solely, and inescapably a work of sinful flesh and not a work of God. God does not use sin to save from sin.

The rest of monergistic Reformed soteriology teaches God as the sole causal agent in salvation. That is why the theology is called monergistic. It's also why a lot of people get confused about Calvinism. Monergism always starts with God, and God alone. The U, L, I, and the P are all about God, not man. All Limited Atonement says is that practically speaking, or operationally speaking, the atoning work of Christ is applicable only to those who God actually saves. It is sufficient for all, but efficient for some, and the "some" are those God chose, those God chose without regard to their own merits (or lack thereof = UC).

Now, because our brother, @Ladodgers6, considers himself a partial-LAer, he may disagree. He is capable of expressing his own views, so I'll let him speak to any existing differences.

 

[Josheb]

Look Civic you are missing the point here.​

"Civic"?

 

[Ladodgers6]

Do God-denying sinners believe in sin?

Do their consciences bear witness to it? Because sinners are without excuse, right?

How can a person be aware of something they intrinsically deny.

How can they intrinsically deny if they aren't aware of it?

They are not robots. As far as I can tell (and I have not read every post) no one has asserted robot theology and it is not a condition of Limited Atonement (LA). The question can be asked simply to cover that base, but now that it's been addressed the premise has no place in the conversation. I'm sure @Ladodgers6 will agree.

Dichotomy between prelapsarian & postlapsarian is based on free-will and is not a matter of limiting God or his attributes. We are not limited because God is Sovereign but because of sin. God allowed the Fall to happen, but he did not cause Adam to fall, make sense? He fell by his own "Free-Will" choice to disobey God. And was punished for it. If God would have coerced Adam to sin then punished him for it, God would be guilty of sin and evil, understand?