Sam Shamoun Vs Matt Slick: Is Limited Atonement Biblical?

Theo1689

Well-known member
First

Ginosko the root does not mean choose

<Chuckle>

That's not how etymology works!

"Prototokos" didn't originally mean "pre-eminent", but that's what the world evolved to mean.

"Gay" did not mean "homosexual", but that's what the word evolved to mean.

"Gentleman" originally did not mean "polite male", but the meaning EVOLVED.

Second

Everything in the context

Speaks to those God knew before - those formerly known

Rom. 8:28–30 —KJV
“And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
¶ For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.”

They have been glorified already

You continue to ignore BDAG.


Only in the critical texts does BAGD translate choose which once again is not a meaning of ginosko not even in bagd

ROTFLOL!

The meaning of the word does NOT depend on which manuscript it is found in!
 

zerinus

Well-known member

What are your thoughts on last night's debate?
Interesting debate. I take the side of Sam Shamoun in this debate, of a universal or unlimited Atonement; and I also think that Sam Shamoun for the most part does a good job of presenting his case biblically, and putting Matt Slick on the defensive. But he makes two doctrinal mistakes which weakens his position quite a bit. If he fixes those, he will be able refute Matt Slick without a problem. The first mistake he makes is that he assumes that the Atonement of Jesus Christ takes effect in the life of the believer on the basis of faith alone; whereas the biblical doctrine is faith coupled with repentance. The gospel of Jesus Christ is a gospel of repentance, not just faith alone. It is faith coupled with repentance (Matt. 4:17; Mark 1:14-15; 2:17; 6:12; Luke 5:32; 13:3; 15:7; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 17:30; 20:21; 26:20; Rom. 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9; Rev. 3:19).

The second mistake that he has made is that he has seriously misunderstood Colossians chapter 1, especially verse 20, as follows:


Colossians 1:

20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.


The bit that he gets wrong is where it says, “by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven,” by which he understands to mean that Jesus’ Atonement covered the sins of all, in heaven and on earth, including Satan and his crew! But that is not what the scripture is saying. “Heaven” doesn’t include Satan and his crew! Satan and his crew are in hell, not in heaven! Jesus’ Atonement did not extend to the devils in hell. He also says that if the devils “believed” they would be saved. That is not correct either. The devils do believe!

James 2:

19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.


But it doesn’t lead to their salvation. What they cannot do is to repent, which explains also why they cannot also be redeemed. Jesus’ Atonement did not extend to the devils in hell. Jesus came to atone for the sins of fallen humanity, on both sides of the veil, both those who had died before he was born, as well as those who came after. For “as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” (1 Cor. 15:22) The devils didn’t “die in Adam,” that they should be redeemed by the Atonement of Jesus Christ. Those are the two mistakes that Sam Shamoun makes. If he fixes those, he can defeat Matt Slick (and other Calvinists) hands down.

Matt Slick, on the other hand, makes the common Calvinistic error of assuming that the Atonement of Jesus Christ redeems mankind from their sins unconditionally, which is entirely unbiblical and false. Hence he concludes that if Jesus atoned for the sins of all men, then all men without exception should be (unconditionally) redeemed, which is not biblical. Nothing is taught more clearly in the Bible than that the Atonement of Jesus Christ saves mankind only on condition of faith and repentance, which is entirely man’s choice, and there is no “predestination”. People freely choose whether to believe and repent or not, and are redeemed or condemned accordingly.
 
Last edited:

TomFL

Well-known member
TomFL said:
First

Ginosko the root does not mean choose

<Chuckle>

That's not how etymology works!

"Prototokos" didn't originally mean "pre-eminent", but that's what the world evolved to mean.

"Gay" did not mean "homosexual", but that's what the word evolved to mean.

"Gentleman" originally did not mean "polite male", but the meaning EVOLVED.

Except

Ginosko never means choose

Pro is but a suffix meaning before

Prototokis came to mean pre-eminent because its meaning first born denoted one who had pre eminency according cultural custom


everything in the context

Speaks to those God knew before - those formerly known

Rom. 8:28–30 —KJV
“And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
¶ For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.”

They have been glorified already

These are men in the past

Acts 26:5 —KJV
“Which knew me from the beginning, if they would testify, that after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee.”

Paul was known from the beginning - in the past

BAGD notes

Pt 1:20.—Know from time past (Jos., Bell. 6, 8)προγινώσκοντές με ἄνωθεν Ac 26:5. M-M.

1 Pet. 1:20 —ESV
“He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you”

Acts 26:5 —KJV
“Which knew me from the beginning, if they would testify, that after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee.”

William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature : A Translation and Adaption of the Fourth Revised and Augmented Edition of Walter Bauer’s Griechisch-Deutsches Worterbuch Zu Den Schrift En Des Neuen Testaments Und Der Ubrigen Urchristlichen Literatur (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979), 703.

Rom. 11:2–4 —KJV
“God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying,
Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.”

again people who God knew in the past - In Elias day

The Jewish people with whom God had a relationship before are not fully cast away.

Only in the critical texts does BAGD translate choose which once again is not a meaning of ginosko not even in bagd

Theo never addresses any scripture

You continue to ignore BDAG.

Scripture rules over BAGD. And you address none of it

Isn't it funny how BAGD give such a meaning only in Calvinist critical texts
ROTFLOL!

The meaning of the word does NOT depend on which manuscript it is found in!

Indeed but a word meaning given only in texts critical to one theology sounds a lot like selective sighting or special pleading

and of course examples were given where progonosko cannot have that meaning
 
Last edited:

Septextura

Well-known member
Hello and welcome

And ?

If total inability is true how does anyone become a worshipper of God short of regeneration

If the Calvinist assumes the opening of Lydia's heart speaks of regeneration how did she being unregenerate and addled with a total inability to respond to God in a positive manner become a worshipper of God

Same question applies for the Pharisees. They were huge zealots for God, far bigger than Lydia, surely. Yet they rejected the gospel and the Messiah.

Scripture clearly says the Pharisees were blinded by God unto unbelif. Not only the Pharisees, but the whole world, with exception to the elect. To the elect God opens the hearts in due time, aka effectual call.

2 Corinthians 2
3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
5 For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake.

This is called equal ultimacy. From the same clay God creates vessels for honor and dishonor. It's not by any merit anyone gets saved. We all deserve to be damned because of our fallen nature.
 

TomFL

Well-known member
Same question applies for the Pharisees. They were huge zealots for God, far bigger than Lydia, surely. Yet they rejected the gospel and the Messiah.

Scripture clearly says the Pharisees were blinded by God unto unbelif. Not only the Pharisees, but the whole world, with exception to the elect. To the elect God opens the hearts in due time, aka effectual call.

2 Corinthians 2


This is called equal ultimacy. From the same clay God creates vessels for honor and dishonor. It's not by any merit anyone gets saved. We all deserve to be damned because of our fallen nature.
Even most Calvinist reject equal ultimacy. I think there are a few here who would affirm it

So how did the unregenerate Israelites worship God (if they truly did)

The Israelites were judically hardened for a period of time

Their restoration however was a possibility and in their hands to remedy

Rom. 11:1–23 —ESV
Ҧ I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin.
God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he appeals to God against Israel?
“Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have demolished your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life.”
But what is God’s reply to him? “I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.”
So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace.
But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.
¶ What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened,
as it is written, “God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that would not see and ears that would not hear, down to this very day.”
¶ And David says, “Let their table become a snare and a trap, a stumbling block and a retribution for them;
let their eyes be darkened so that they cannot see, and bend their backs forever.”
¶ So I ask, did they stumble in order that they might fall? By no means! Rather, through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous.
Now if their trespass means riches for the world, and if their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean!
¶ Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry
in order somehow to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them.
For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead?
If the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, so is the whole lump, and if the root is holy, so are the branches.
¶ But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree,
do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you.
Then you will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.”
That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear.
For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you.
Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off.
And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again.”

that mitigates against unconditional particular election and predestination
 

Septextura

Well-known member
@TomFL

You're now making my case.

Romans 11
1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying,
3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.
5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

God sustained 7,000 men to remain faithful and left the rest to perish by being deceived by Satan. If you believe Open Theism, then God simply got lucky exactly 7,000 men remained faithful on their own volition. It could have been 0.

Likewise with the unbelieving Israel. His elect got saved, the rest were reprobated.
 
Last edited:

TomFL

Well-known member
@TomFL

You're now making my case.

Romans 11
Unless you are arguing It was Israel's own unbelief that caused them to be hardened temporarily and that their condition had a remedy

not hardly

The Israelites were judically hardened for a period of time

Their restoration however was a possibility and in their hands to remedy

Rom. 11:1–23 —ESV
Ҧ I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin.
God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he appeals to God against Israel?
“Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have demolished your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life.”
But what is God’s reply to him? “I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.”
So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace.
But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.
¶ What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened,
as it is written, “God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that would not see and ears that would not hear, down to this very day.”
¶ And David says, “Let their table become a snare and a trap, a stumbling block and a retribution for them;
let their eyes be darkened so that they cannot see, and bend their backs forever.”
¶ So I ask, did they stumble in order that they might fall? By no means! Rather, through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous.
Now if their trespass means riches for the world, and if their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean!
¶ Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry
in order somehow to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them.
For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead?
If the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, so is the whole lump, and if the root is holy, so are the branches.
¶ But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree,
do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you.
Then you will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.”
That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear.
For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you.
Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off.
And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again.”

that mitigates against unconditional particular election and predestination
 

Septextura

Well-known member
@TomFL

Look at your light switch in the room. It's either on or off. I'm telling you God turns it on or off. You're telling me well if it wasn't off it would have been on by itself.

Anyways, we've come to the end of the discussion. It's getting loopy. But thank you for sharing your thoughts. 🍻

God bless.
 

TomFL

Well-known member
@TomFL

Look at your light switch in the room. It's either on or off. I'm telling you God turns it on or off. You're telling me well if it wasn't off it would have been on by itself.

Anyways, we've come to the end of the discussion. It's getting loopy. But thank you for sharing your thoughts. 🍻

God bless.
Well the discussion is not about light switches

and I am not telling you well if it wasn't off it would have been on by itself.

I am telling you Israel was generally unbelieving. God used that unbelief temporary hardening them so as to effect the crucifixion and bring the gospel to the gentiles

Even then the Jews were not predestined to damnation but could be restored if they did not remain in unbelief

That option would not be available if they were predestined to such damnation

do you not remember the thousands of Jews who turned to Christ in Acts chapter 2 & 3
 

Septextura

Well-known member
@TomFL

Don't get stuck on the unbelieving Jews. You skipped the part where the whole world is blinded to the gospel unless God reveals it.

2 Corinthians 4
3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
5 For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake.
6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.

P.S. I misquoted the chapter in my previous comment, it's 4 not 2.
 
Last edited:

zerinus

Well-known member
Same question applies for the Pharisees. They were huge zealots for God, far bigger than Lydia, surely. Yet they rejected the gospel and the Messiah.
They were not "zealots for God". They were hypocrites. Their "zeal" towards God was a false pretense. They wore long robes, and made public prayers in order to be "seen of men;" but their hearts were far from God. They "tithed mint and rue," but neglected the "weightier matters of the Law". All their "piety" was nothing more than a sham and a false pretense. All their efforts was to appear righteous before men, while inwardly they were full of corruption and wickedness. They were like "whited sepulchres" which appear beautiful on the outside, but are full of dead men's bones and uncleanness on the inside. They were anything but zealous towards God.
 

TomFL

Well-known member
@TomFL

Don't get stuck on the unbelieving Jews. You skipped the part where the whole world is blinded to the gospel unless God reveals it.

2 Corinthians 4


P.S. I misquoted the chapter in my previous comment, it's 4 not 2.
The whole world is not mentioned

Those currently lost are

2 Cor. 4:3–4 —KJV
“But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.”

Those who have been blinded by Satan

additionally Romans 9 is about Israel not the whole world
 

Septextura

Well-known member
@zerinus

They were zealous and totally depraved. It's not mutually exclusive.

Romans 10
2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

Acts 22:3
I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.
 

zerinus

Well-known member
God sustained 7,000 men to remain faithful and left the rest to perish by being deceived by Satan.
You got that backwards. God had chosen them precisely because they had not bowed the knee to Baal, not the other way.
If you believe Open Theism, then God simply got lucky exactly 7,000 men remained faithful on their own volition. It could have been 0.
Open Theism has nothing to do with anything.
 

TomFL

Well-known member
@zerinus

They were zealous and totally depraved. It's not mutually exclusive.

Romans 10


Acts 22:3
Your point

And it proves Calvinism how ?

Total inability claims men are not able to respond to God in any positive manner

A zeal for God is ruled out by a doctrine of total inability
 

zerinus

Well-known member
They were zealous and totally depraved. It's not mutually exclusive.
Not true. You are basically saying that it is impossible to be righteous before God, except as a hypocrite. That is not what the Bible says. The Bible says that it is indeed possible to be righteous before God, without being a hypocrite at the same time. Here are two examples:

Luke 1:

5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.
6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

Luke 2:

25 And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him.


If your theology is correct, these were all hypocrites, like the Pharisees, no difference. That is not the scripture is saying.
 
Top