Oh so you don't claim yourself as an authority
So you present no exegesis of of scripture and you have no authority
Conclusion there is no reason to heed you at all
That sums it all up
Last edited by a moderator:
Atonement extended to All
- Thread starter TomFL
- Start date
So you present no exegesis of of scripture and you have no authority
Conclusion there is no reason to heed you at all
That sums it all up
stop the bickering/insulting
Last edited by a moderator:
INDEED SO!
The essence of the totality of the posts of a certain Mormon was to
- Establish a preposterous theory so that Mormonism could be "defended from the particular misinterpretation of Scripture
- Confuse Christians into making a statement which could be "used as a gotcha" later on.
Last edited:
You failed to answer the question.
A cut-and-paste from Strong's lexicon will never give you that sort of information. Please compare what you posted, and what I posted
40.1 καταλλάσσω; καταλλαγή, ῆς f; ἀποκαταλλάσσω; συναλλάσσω: to reestablish proper friendly interpersonal relations after these have been disrupted or broken (the componential features of this series of meanings involve (1) disruption of friendly relations because of (2) presumed or real provocation, (3) overt behavior designed to remove hostility, and (4) restoration of original friendly relations)—‘to reconcile, to make things right with one another, reconciliation.’
καταλλάσσω: τὰ δὲ πάντα ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ καταλλάξαντος ἡμᾶς ἑαυτῷ διὰ Χριστοῦ ‘all this is done by God who through Christ reconciled us to himself’ 2 Cor 5:18.
καταλλαγή: δἰ οὗ νῦν τὴν καταλλαγὴν ἐλάβομεν ‘through whom we were reconciled (with God)’ Ro 5:11.
ἀποκαταλλάσσω: δἰ αὐτοῦ ἀποκαταλλάξαι τὰ πάντα εἰς αὐτόν ‘through him, (God) reconciled the whole world to himself’ Col 1:20.
συναλλάσσω: συνήλλασσεν αὐτοὺς εἰς εἰρήνην ‘he tried to make peace between them’ Ac 7:26. This is the only instance of συναλλάσσω in the NT, and it has εἰς εἰρήνην added to emphasize peace as the goal, although the feature of making peace between previously hostile individuals is already implicit in the act of reconciliation.
Because of the variety and complexity of the components involved in reconciliation, it is often necessary to use an entire phrase in order to communicate satisfactorily the meanings of the terms in this subdomain. In some languages, however, reconciliation is often spoken of in idiomatic terms, for example, ‘to cause to become friends again,’ ‘to cause to snap fingers again’ (a symbol of friendly interpersonal relations in many parts of Africa), ‘to cause to be one again,’ or ‘to take away the separation
Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996). Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: based on semantic domains (electronic ed. of the 2nd edition., Vol. 1, p. 501). New York: United Bible Societies.
The Atonement is predicated on the three offices of each Member of the Godhead:
- In eternity, God determined that those who believe in the work of Jesus Christ shall be saved to the uttermost
- In eternity, and in time, Jesus Christ volunteered to die a most horrible death so that those believing in His works could be saved
- In eternity, Holy Spirit knew who would be saved, and presented to them the facts of the atonement to complete their election unto salvation.
Regardless of your preference, the important thing about each of these two theories is that they are founded upon the work of Jesus Christ, and involve every other Member to the Holy Trinity
Once again you fail to provide proof of your claim
Verses were posted if you think they were interpreted incorrectly it might be a good idea to show how with exegesis of the said verses
The question concerned the removal of wrath
The Greek word translated atonement
2643 καταλλαγή [katallage /kat·al·lag·ay/] n f. From 2644; TDNT 1:258; TDNTA 40; GK 2903; Four occurrences; AV translates as “reconciliation” twice, “atonement” once, and “reconciling” once. 1 exchange. 1A of the business of money changers, exchanging equivalent values. 2 adjustment of a difference, reconciliation, restoration to favour. 2A in the NT of the restoration of the favour of God to sinners that repent and put their trust in the expiatory death of Christ.
seems to me that would be covered under restoration to favor
James Strong, Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon (Woodside Bible Fellowship, 1995).
This is the second (perhaps more) time that you mentioned "exegesis" as a challenge to another poster. If you can exegete Scripture, please do so. If you cannot do it, please cease.
Essentially, your challenge is somewhat trollish because you are essentially trying to make the other poster seem foolish. Because you failed to supply anything resembling exegesis, it is my opinion that you may be unable to exegete Scripture, too. Thus the posts here seem to be filled with "ammo" taken from the barn floor, and thrown into a fan.
IOW I am not impressed.
Seems to me that you failed to read, and perhaps could not comprehend what I wrote. What some author added or took away is immaterial. The question of the OP is the nature and extent of the Atonement.
I am addressing that, you are not. That is because you are focusing on a sapling, and not seeing the forest.
There is a problem when a poster offers nothing but denials and claims of error without any backing
It is quite proper to ask for proof
and difficult to see why that would be objectionable
Last edited:
It's my op and the question was the extent of the atonement.
To that end a number of verses concerning John's use of the term world.
From Lexical and scriptural use evidence for the belief the term encompasses all of mankind was presented.
How you can claim you are addressing that and I am not is a great mystery.
No problem with that--within reason. This "discussion" has gone beyond the "unreasonable stage" and onto the "foolishness stage"
If you could do exegesis you would have previously demonstrate that. As it is, all you are doing is continuing to ceaselessly bicker and show no progress in the discussion
Essentially, your challenge is somewhat trollish because you are essentially trying to make the other poster seem foolish. Because you failed to supply anything resembling exegesis, it is my opinion that you may be unable to exegete Scripture, too. Thus the posts here seem to be filled with "ammo" taken from the barn floor, and thrown into a fan.
IOW I am not impressed.
I strongly recommend that you cease your pointless and argumentative bickering. I think that there are rules about that here, and you do not want to get the attention of the mods.
That sounds like an old song by Leslie Gore called "Its my Party"
So what?
You are simply derailing your own OP, and for sure, you do not "own" your OP.
I am NOT the subject of this "discussion".
You are mistaken
Exegesis was provided in the beginning
Said poster responded with the bickering and never addressed a thing I stated
despite continued effort on my part to get him to do so
So how is it you think you can tell me what the purpose of my op was and tell me you addressed it and I did not ?
It was to show the extent of the atonement by examining John's use of the term World
I did that
If the op was derailed it was derailed because the argument was not being addressed despite my efforts
to get it addressed.
Asking for exegesis was part of that effort.
Last edited:
So what?
You are assuming that there is an obligation for others to answer your post in the manner and discussing the topic as you wish to discuss. There is no such obligation here.
Not even close. Since you have not given any indication that you even know what exegesis is, and I get that from your statements, it is fair to say that you are unable to do that. More to the point, I see no evidence of any knowledge of either Hebrew, or Koine Greek on your part.
Since neither of you have any experience doing any exegesis, you are like the blind men arguing about the nature of the elephant in their neighbor's yard.
I shall no longer respond to foolish posts on this thread.
Last edited:
So I challenged him on his conclusions
Not as I wish but there is an obligation to support ones arguments with facts ands scriptural proof
First one does not have to know Hebrew or Greek to do exegesis
So perhaps it is you who does not know what it is
And as for your negative comments about being blind
1 You tried to tell me what the purpose of my op was claiming I did not answer the op and you did.
2 you claimed there was no difference between universal atonement and universal salvation but in response to
The benefits of Christ's death are provisionally offered to all ( universal atonement) but only those who believe receive the benefits
you replied
affirming a difference
3 You objected to my quote from Strong's enhanced lexicon as an answer to the question does atonement provide for the removal of wrath - the meaning I highlight was a restoration to favor which I noted would entail the removal of wrath in another post and merely highlighted in the post you criticized hoping the highlighting would cause realization
4 You appealed to Eph 1:3 and an apparent belief in predestination ? . Are you aware the passage concerns the blessing one has in Christ and that a very good argument can be made it is not speaking of any unconditional particular election /predestination at all
In the future it would be a good idea if you confine yourself to issues and not call anyone blind
SDAchristian
Member
AV 1Jn 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world.
The OC/OT shows the movement("atonement") of sins via confession and blood, until they are destroyed, with the final bearer of those sins.
AV Lv 16:10 But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat{H5799 `aza'zel}, shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement with him, [and] to let him go for a scapegoat{H5799 `aza'zel} into the wilderness.
GOD purchased all sins, so that to the redeemed, their sins can be forgiven via the scapegoat's death in the lake of fire.
AV Mt 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
So that to the lost who have retained their sins, those sins are destroyed in the lake of fire with their "both soul and body".
"universalism" denies GOD's ultimate judgement of all sins, regardless of confession.
Yours in Christ, Michael
Theo1689
Well-known member
Is it possible that you might be mistaken in your interpretation of this verse?
Or do you claim a perfect understanding of every verse of Scripture?
SDAchristian
Member
"Is it possible that you might be mistaken in your interpretation of this verse?", There two ways to look at this, probable and possible. Which would invite further discussion in both outcomes.
AV Mt 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
"Or do you claim a perfect understanding of every verse of Scripture?", No. Are we good now for further discussion of Bible evidence ???
What does give GOD the right to destroy sins, that GOD did not create or own ???
Yours in Christ, Michael