Actually that is horse pucky Jack. It appears as I just showed you and one connotation is EXPIATION, which means atonement, just as propitiation is another word for expiation. You insistence on equivocating is getting quite tedious.
Of course you have no answer for my first question do you?
The Hebrew "atonement" KAPUR means "covering." The English word "expiation" doesn't! Propitiation means "satisfaction." It is a fact that "atonement" doesn't appear in the NT. I believe I've answered all your questions, which "first question" are you referring to?
The context, the second coming, does NOT change the truth of what Peter said Jack. People were impatient and wanted to see Jesus' return. Peter rightly pointed out that God's timetable is NOT the same as our and He is NOT motivated like we are. Hence Peter's statement that God wasn't being slow to return but that He wanted to give mankind EVERY chance to be saved.
That is NOT THE context Jack, you just want it to be to suit your purposes of improperly eisegeting scripture. The CONTEXT is Paul attesting to who Jesus really is and His purpose, which he states in v20. In your logic, the CONTEXT of Amazing Grace is the verse "I ONCE WAS LOST", BUT IT isn't. The context is AMAZING GRACE. The context is what Jesus did and WHO He did it for.... that would be ALL things!
If WE were to believe that YOU really believe your own logic here, YOU would not accept ANYTHING the Bible has to say because it isn't written to us, but I know that is NOT what you believe, so this is pure obfuscation and equivocation.
Limited Atonement?
- Thread starter Stan
- Start date
It is very true, Stan. I don't know what you're talking about. Even you must limit a universal atonement in power because if you don't than you must advocate universal salvation, which I don't think you do.
Romans 6:10 uses PAS which you yourself said meant "each one" as opposed to ALLOS meaning an all inclusive "all." If you don't limit this verse in power, than you have universal salvation. I see it limited in scope. Besides, once again the very context is speaking about those who have been liberated from death because of his death. The phrase "for all" comes from the adverb "EPIAPAX" which simply emphasizes the singularity of the event. It doesn't convey the idea of "for all" in most of the other places where it appears in the NT (i.e.I Cor. 15:6; Hb. 7:27; 9:12).
I Peter 3:18 Here's an excellent verse that in the context says, "...in order that He might bring us to God." The phrase "for all" doesn't appear in the original language and the word "once" is an adverb APAX signifying the number of times He died. The pronoun is very obviously present indicating the people to whom Peter was speaking and he is speaking to saved people. This is an excellent limited atonement verse.
Hb. 7:27 uses this same adverb and the KJV doesn't include "all."
You can certainly think whatever you wish, this has been my theology for many, many years.
Well what YOU think Jack is NOT necessarily truth, and what I said stands. ONLY YOU.
Rom 6:10 does NOT use pas Jack. What are you reading? I opened with John 3:16. You need to stay focused and stop mixing up the posts. The Greek word here is ephapax, and means exactly how it is translated, once for all.
As a matter of FACT this word means the same in all those verses you just itemized and you saying it doesn't is to say the LEAST, disingenuous. Again, your claim to KNOW Greek, falls short in how you shows the improper connotations of the words used. Thayer's and Vine's both reject your connotation. So does MOUNCE. As I know of their credentials, and you DON'T have any in Greek, then I don't accept yours. Sadly YOU will be subject to what Jesus said about the Pharisees and how they taught.
The Greek word here is hapas, and again connotes "once for all," of what is of perpetual validity, not requiring repetition, Hbr 6:4; 9:28; 10:2; 1Pe 3:18; Jud 1:3, "once for all". As we don't have ANY autographs, your assertions that it DOESN'T appear in the original language is again dubious and suspect, and because you should KNOW that, disingenuous as well.
As far as WHAT the KJV does or doesn't use, that is irrelevant to the issue at hand, as the Greek text does.
I like reading your posts / discussing with you even though we disagree 100%
. You sound honest and patient.I wouldnt use 1 John 5:13 without 1 Cor 12:3 as many have heard and believed, but don't accept Jesus. A revelation from the Holy Spirit is needed for us to call Jesus Lord, as was the case with Peter. The most convincing proof I feel that you can raise from scripture with your way of thinking is that we hear God's voice and have the witness of the Holy Spirit John 10:27, 1 Corinthians 12:3.
In every religion, people have an emotional experience with a god. So being 100% confident in our salvation purely off the voice / feeling we have from God is not wise. We need to look at our fruits Matt 7:16 'You will know them by their fruits'. Now we know that none of us are living without sin. Hence we are all repenting and asking for forgiveness daily so we follow Phil 2:12 work out your salvation with fear and trembling and 1 Cor 10:12 Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall.
We can have confidence that we are saved, I am not disputing that, but the confidence we have is from / after examining ourselves, our actions and thoughts. 2 Cor 13:5.
None of us can truthfully say we have never feared missing the rapture after being in sin
.
Last edited:
Jack?Interesting point. But you are looking at the ark with the mindset that God is partial. If we look at it with the mindset that God is impartial, which He is!!!!
as I argue with you in the other thread, then we deduce something like this:God looked at the earth and saw there were many evil. So much so that He knew only one ark was sufficient. Should more want to be righteous He would have asked them to make two or more boats or perhaps not have even brought a flood.
Last edited:
As I've said before, I'd be hapy to clarify my beliefs on anything you wish. Name it.
[quote-"Always enjoy reading your opinions Stan.[/quote]
JACK: And you are certainly entitled to your opinion, Stan.
Interesting point. But you are looking at the ark with the mindset that God is partial. If we look at it with the mindset that God is impartial, which He is!!!!
God looked at the earth and saw there were many evil. So much so that He knew only one ark was sufficient. Should more want to be righteous He would have asked them to make two or more boats or perhaps not have even brought a flood.
I'm not sure what you mean by "impartial." Noah is the first person that it is said received the "grace" of God (Gen. 6:8). The fact that he needed God's grace in the first place would testify to me that he was part of the corrupt race inhabiting the earth. If God were truly impartial, why did he dispense grace and save Noah and his family and no one else? He could have destroyed all the world--Noah and his family included--and started all over again, and that would have been perfectly justified. The fact that God gives grace to some and not to others while all are deserving of his wrath imply impartiality?
I like reading your posts / discussing with you even though we disagree 100%
I wouldnt use 1 John 5:13 without 1 Cor 12:3 as many have heard and believed, but don't accept Jesus. A revelation from the Holy Spirit is needed for us to call Jesus Lord, as was the case with Peter. The most convincing proof I feel that you can raise from scripture with your way of thinking is that we hear God's voice and have the witness of the Holy Spirit John 10:27, 1 Corinthians 12:3.
In every religion, people have an emotional experience with a god. So being 100% confident in our salvation purely off the voice / feeling we have from God is not wise. We need to look at our fruits Matt 7:16 'You will know them by their fruits'. Now we know that none of us are living without sin. Hence we are all repenting and asking for forgiveness daily so we follow Phil 2:12 work out your salvation with fear and trembling and 1 Cor 10:12 Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall.
We can have confidence that we are saved, I am not disputing that, but the confidence we have is from / after examining ourselves, our actions and thoughts. 2 Cor 13:5.
None of us can truthfully say we have never feared missing the rapture after being in sin
I certainly agree that salvation is a supernatural act of the Holy Spirit, and while I don't want to put words in your mouth, it seems to me that is what I think you are saying (correct me if I'm wrong about that). God's Word must be involved in salvation. "Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God." I also agree that godly fruits are produced by godly people, and if there are no godly fruits present, that would give cause to doubt a person's salvation. Even Calvin said, "Faith alone saves, but the faith that saves is never alone."
Impartial = Adjective = Treating all rivals or disputants equally; fair and just.
Synonyms = unbiased - even-handed - equitable - fair - dispassionate
Last edited:
If that is your definition of impartiality, then I would say God isn't impartial in the dispersing of his grace. For what reason did He give grace to Noah and his family and not to anyone else? They were all sinners. For what reason did He pick out Israel for special privileges and relationship and no one else? Even David was mystified as to why he was chosen to be the king of such a nation. I think you include "impartiality" as you define it in the attributes of God, you must destroy any notion of God's grace. The very fact that God dispenses grace means He doesn't treat all people alike. He certainly didn't treat Israel like the Philistines and yet both nations succombed to idolatry. He didn't treat Noah like the rest of the world, yet they were all sinners who earned the same punishment.
JACK: I really don't know if Noah would have even known what "Calvinist" meant, but to suggest that Calvinists don't preach God's Word is ridiculous. It is also ridiculous to think that the Ark was of sufficient size to accommodate all the people on the earth at that time. The author of Hebrews specifically says it was constructed for the eight souls. Noah was told to preach and he did, I don't know exactly what God told him, except to invite all into the Ark, and he did. The greatest evangelists and missionaries in the history of Christianity have been Calvinists. Even Ezekiel was told to preach to a valley of dead, dry, parched bones and he did. Noah preached to a lost society for 120 years. We preach because God told us to. We are to go out into all the world the preach the gospel to every creature. It is by the hearing of the Word that people are saved. Some times God used the preaching of the Word to save people and in that we greatly rejoice. As I mentioned before, the Father of Modern Missions, William Carey, went to India and preached his heart out winning some unto to the Lord and he was a strong Calvinist. So did David Branerd (however you spell his name) to the Indians of New Jersey, and he was also a Calvinist as well as his father-in-law Jonathan Edwards who was instrumental in starting the Great Awakending in the 18th century. We invite people to believe in Christ and God, at times, is pleased to save people through that preaching.
Jack, what you are doing is looking at a situation and defining God instead of looking at the scriptural definitions of God and then understanding the situation. That is what atheists do when they judge a God that gave orders to kill babies.
I'm not sure I understand your point. Could you elaborate on that or, better yet, give me an example or two. I'd like to understand what you mean.