Atonement extended to All

TomFL

Well-known member
Previously edited



previously edited

I NEVER presented myself as an "authority".



<sigh>

previously edited.
If I said that "2 + 2 = 4", you'd argue against me.



I have no REASON to have to "defend [my] views".
My views need no "defending".
They are from God.
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:

TomFL

Well-known member
stop the bickering/insulting
I have no reason to.



There's a million more reasons to heed me, than to heed the likes of you.
You contradict the Bible.
Again you present no evidence of that

EDIT Bickering

EDIT insult
 
Last edited by a moderator:

John t

Active member
We are wondering off topic here
INDEED SO!

The essence of the totality of the posts of a certain Mormon was to
  1. Establish a preposterous theory so that Mormonism could be "defended from the particular misinterpretation of Scripture
  2. Confuse Christians into making a statement which could be "used as a gotcha" later on.
I urge y'all to stop feeding the trolls on CARM,. IMO, all the LDS people here fit that description That is especially true when they post on threads that discuss things which they cannot accurately reply because they are uniformly spiritually blind (2 Corinthians 4:3-4 )
 
Last edited:

John t

Active member
SeventhDay said:
1Thess521 said:
Does the meaning of the word atonement include the appeasement of the wrath of God?

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.

James Strong, Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon (Woodside Bible Fellowship, 1995).

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:
  1. In eternity, God determined that those who believe in the work of Jesus Christ shall be saved to the uttermost
  2. In eternity, and in time, Jesus Christ volunteered to die a most horrible death so that those believing in His works could be saved
  3. In eternity, Holy Spirit knew who would be saved, and presented to them the facts of the atonement to complete their election unto salvation.
All that is left to do is determine (among friends) if the Archbishop of Canterbury, Anselm was correct in his "Satisfaction theory" of the Atonement, or if the Reformers were correct when they modified Anselm's theory to create the "penal substitutionary theory"

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
 

TomFL

Well-known member
It seems to me that you are misinterpreting the passage.
Sorry, I'm not convinced.
Your problem is that you're not coming to Scripture looking for what it actually SAYS, but you're coming to it from the agenda of "How can I use this to try to attack Calvinism?"
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
 

TomFL

Well-known member
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

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).
 

John t

Active member
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
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.
 

John t

Active member
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).

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.
 

TomFL

Well-known member
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.
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:

TomFL

Well-known member
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.
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.
 

John t

Active member
It is quite proper to ask for proof
No problem with that--within reason. This "discussion" has gone beyond the "unreasonable stage" and onto the "foolishness stage"
and difficult to see why that would be objectionable
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.
 

TomFL

Well-known member
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.
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
 

TomFL

Well-known member
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.
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:

John t

Active member
Said poster responded with the bickering and never addressed a thing I stated
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.
You are mistaken. Exegesis was provided in the beginning

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.
Asking for exegesis was part of that effort
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:

TomFL

Well-known member

So I challenged him on his conclusions


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 as I wish but there is an obligation to support ones arguments with facts ands scriptural proof
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.

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

That goes without saying!

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
 
The sufficiency of Christ's blood and the extent of the legal act of His sacrifice are not the same things. Christ's blood is sufficient to cover all people. But the sufficiency relates to ability and value which is different than a legal debt. Sin is a legal debt (Matt. 6:12 with Luke 11:4) since it is breaking the Law of God (1 John 3:4). Legal debts can be transferred, and peoples' sin debts were transferred to Jesus (1 Pet. 2:24). Their sin debt was canceled at the cross, not when we believe (Col. 2:14). Our justification, which is different than Christ's atonement, occurs when we believe (Rom. 3:28; 4:5; 5:1). But Christ canceled the sin debt at the cross (Col. 2:13-14; John 19:30) before we were alive. He took our place (Isa. 53:4-6). Furthermore, sins cannot be held against a sinner if his sin debt is canceled. Therefore, logically Christ only legally bore the sins of the elect even though his blood was sufficient to cover all. Otherwise, this would necessitate universalism and the unrighteousness of God judging people and sending them to hell for sins that have been paid for, been canceled, and no longer can be held to a person’s account.
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
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.

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?
 
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?
"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
 
Top