Contend Earnestly: Atonement Debate Continued

Monday, November 26, 2007

Atonement Debate Continued


Here is the next installment from Turretinfan, may the discussion begin.


For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come. This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation. For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

1 Timothy 4:8-10


The living God is Saviour of the bodies of all men who live (it is he that preserves them from death), but the living God is a Savior in the highest form only of the elect for it is they who will live both in this life and the next.


-Turretinfan

12 comments:

Dominic Bnonn Tennant said...

I have seen an interesting interpretation of this verse which aligns with the post above, which I think is quite sound despite that I believe Christ really is the savior of all men in a soteriological sense. The argument centers around the contemporary usage of the word savior in Greek and Roman society. It was a term frequently applied to leaders or warriors—people in positions of power or authority. A man in charge of a town, who saw to its continued prosperity and survival, was often called its savior. This fits very well with the position of Jesus over all men in a temporal sense.

The weakness of this argument is that Scripture does not use the term in this way anywhere else. Although one can make a good argument from the particular context of this passage that this is an exception, it does seem that a soteriological meaning would be more congruent with the use of savior throughout the rest of Scripture.

Regards,
Bnonn

natamllc said...

Again, I would have to assert that God first loved me, I did not love Him. God sought me, I did not seek Him.

Joh 15:15 No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you.
Joh 15:16 You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you.
Joh 15:17 These things I command you, so that you will love one another.
Joh 15:18 "If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you.
Joh 15:19 If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.


Now that I have received His Love, I still need daily salvation from Christ My Savior to Love God and do His Will, which is not I, but rather it is Christ in me, the Hope of Glory doing as He Wills.

I am daily confronted with Bread and the Cross, hence, I die daily.

What am I dying too then, daily? My self life/sarx, my self life/bios, my self life/psuche perhaps?

Here is an area TF touches on that I believe helps this one understand:

Here is that portion of TF's words quoted here as above:

TF:....but the living God is a Savior in the highest form only of the elect for it is they who will live both in this life and the next.


Here are the verses:

* please note: two Kings, two Kingdoms, however one God Who are Three, the Father, the Son, the Only Begotten of the Father and the Holy Ghost:

1Ch 17:11 When your days are fulfilled to walk with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, one of your own sons, and I will establish his kingdom.
1Ch 17:12 He shall build a house for me, and I will establish his throne forever.
1Ch 17:13 I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. I will not take my steadfast love from him, as I took it from him who was before you,
1Ch 17:14 but I will confirm him in my house and in my kingdom forever, and his throne shall be established forever.'"
1Ch 17:15 In accordance with all these words, and in accordance with all this vision, Nathan spoke to David.

and

Dan 2:44 And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, nor shall the kingdom be left to another people. It shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand forever,

Michael

Turretinfan said...

Bnonn,

You may be interested to consider/compare the usage of soter in Ephesians 5:23.

Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

Or consider the use of related words such as "saved" (Jude 5, 2 Peter 2:5, or 1 Peter 3:20).

-Turretinfan

Turretinfan said...

Dear Michael,

Dying to sin, and living unto righteousness.

Killing off the old man, maturing in the new.

But I don't think it has much to do directly with the point of this post.

-Turretinfan

Dominic Bnonn Tennant said...

TF—

You would argue, then, that 1 Timothy 4:10 could be better translated into English as Jesus being the preserver of all men, especially of those who believe?

I don't really have a problem with that argument. I am not necessarily convinced by it, but I think only a fool would say it is a bad argument which cannot be sound. The truth is, the Greek does not appear to tell us beyond doubt precisely what is meant here. I don't see this making any difference to Seth's position, though...

Regards,
Bnonn

Turretinfan said...

B: "I don't see this making any difference to Seth's position, though..."

I answer:
I think it might.

Recall that Seth's counter-thesis was: "I will be ... affirming that Christ died universally for the whole world, especially the elect."

-Turretinfan

natamllc said...

TF, gulp!

Well then, let me refine it and whack at this first part then:

TF:The living God is Saviour of the bodies of all men who live (it is he that preserves them from death),

I answer:

Yes, was blind and now I see. I was dead and walking thinking I was quite alive until the Law of Righteousness came alive in me and I too died. I understand that.

Further I understand the difference between "being made alive" and being "conjoined, reanimated" "being made alive TOGETHER with Christ".

The Elect, as I see it, and hopefully interpret this carefully enough, are these folks, THE ELECT, best said by the Apostle Paul, directly quoting him and not you or some commentary from the 4th century fathers ideas or the 16th century fathers ideas, albeit, their words are good reads:

The Scriptures are hidden until the Holy Ghost breathes on them and makes them alive in us, the Elect! I am assuming the Holy Ghost is as Jesus doing the Will of the One Who Sent Him to the Elect too, albeit He is the One here with us already?

Eph 2:5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ--by grace you have been saved--

Col 2:13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses,

The comment then is intended to point to 1 Timothy 4 and these words there:

[having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come. This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation.]

and to point out that non-elect or non spirit filled readers would find this debate as well as other debates very dry and boring and confusing and stupid charging us as idiots full of idiocies or even idiosyncracies, unless of course they are being quickened by the Holy Ghost as they read herein?

Why does one stop in here and read the debate?

In fact, I am willing to charge, at least one or two, who have chimed in here, with idiosyncracy at a minimum. I am sure the feelings and thoughts are mutual as to my many comments too.:)

I am alive together with Christ now and thankful and I too enjoy what John hungered for for his children and this debate only heightens my desires for more fellowship:

1Jn 1:3 that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.
1Jn 1:4 And we are writing these things so that our joy may be complete.

And I might add one last thought, that is I only hope Seth, you come through with as thorough a response as TF has no matter what you agree or disagree with because of him?

michael

Turretinfan said...

Michael,

Yes, there is a difference between generation (being born of the flesh) and regeneration (being born of the Spirit).

Yet it is the same God who gives life in both instances. One life is mortal, the other eternal.

The natural man is born physically alive, but spiritually he is stillborn. He is by nature the enemy of God, and under the wrath and curse of God.

Yet God (who gave him physical life) mercifully spares his life for a time, and postpones judgment.

Consider such longsuferring one form of salvation. He saves the physical body from physical death for a season.

But with those who believe, God is saves both body and soul from hell, not only for a season, but eternally.

Thus malista ("most of all" or "especially") he is the Savior of those who believe, which we discover from other Scriptures is coextensive with the elect.

-Turretinfan

natamllc said...

While we wait for Seth to come through with his most thorough and detailed responses I will point to something you said above in the last post.

TF:Yet it is the same God who gives life in both instances. One life is mortal, the other eternal.

For me, this is "a" fulcrum upon which this debate separates.

Why?

Here are verses:

Rev 17:11 As for the beast that was and is not, it is an eighth but it belongs to the seven, and it goes to destruction.
Rev 17:12 And the ten horns that you saw are ten kings who have not yet received royal power, but they are to receive authority as kings for one hour, together with the beast.
Rev 17:13 These are of one mind, and they hand over their power and authority to the beast.


Rev 18:23 and the light of a lamp will shine in you no more, and the voice of bridegroom and bride will be heard in you no more, for your merchants were the great ones of the earth, and all nations were deceived by your sorcery.

Rev 19:20 And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence had done the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulfur.


By the way, that word there, 'ALIVE' is this Greek Word:
ζάω
zaō
dzah'-o
A primary verb; to live (literally or figuratively): - life (-time), (a-) live (-ly), quick.

Whenever you see the translation using a word, alive, live, life, word, it would be wise to check to see which Greek Word is in play as this is a good case in point that this word zao is the only Word used to express God, Our Heavenly Father's SELF EXISTENCE.

How can these things be?

Rev 20:5 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection.


life:ἀναζάω
anazaō
an-ad-zah'-o
From G303 and G2198; to recover life (literally or figuratively): - (be a-) live again, revive.

and

life:οὐ
ou
oo
Also οὐκ ouk ook used before a vowel and οὐχ ouch ookh before an aspirate.
A primary word; the absolutely negative (compare G3361) adverb; no or not: - + long, nay, neither, never, no (X man), none, [can-] not, + nothing, + special, un ([-worthy]), when, + without, + yet but. See also G3364, G3372.

When one steps back and ponder these very things one is delivered without any help from you or Seth to the place of ELECTION.

How else can anyone have LIFE?

Let alone use LIFE this way as we read here these mysteries in the Book of the Revelation of John.

Yes, God is the Creator of all things.

Without the Eternal no temporal would have any existence too!

I know this was a broad stroke with a broad stroking brush on the canvas of this debate!

But for me, it makes sense! :)

Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done.


We all are going to be judged, one time or another. I have been judged already!

For me then, to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord, it's automatic! I waver not with these things seeing it has been settled already "FOR ME" before the foundation of the World, for me TOO!

And so I can boldly proclaim today:

Rev 21:5 And he who was seated on the throne said, "Behold, I am making all things new." Also he said, "Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true."
Rev 21:6 And he said to me, "It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give from the spring of the water of life without payment.
Rev 21:7 The one who conquers will have this heritage, and I will be his God and he will be my son.
Rev 21:8 But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death."

Michael

YnottonY said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
YnottonY said...

T-Fan said:
"Recall that Seth's counter-thesis was: "I will be ... affirming that Christ died universally for the whole world, especially the elect."

T-Fan seems to be thinking (and possibly anticipating?) that Seth will use this particular passage (as some do) to prove his case that Christ died for more than the elect. On the contrary, all Seth has to do is say this text is neutral, and that his view is, at the very least, compatible with the passage. It is confusing as to why it is tabled. T-Fan can't get the text to prove strict particularism and Seth may not use the text to prove unlimited expiation.

If Seth were to try to use this text to prove his position, he could only argue inferentially that God's being the Saviour of all men presupposes that He is sufficient, by means of Christ's sufficient satisfaction, to save all men. But Seth is under no mandate to do that. He may just say it is neutral and move on to other texts he thinks are relevant.

Each party has a positive case to prove, in addition to posing defeaters to the positive case of the other person. I suspect that T-Fan tabled this Timothy passage, along with his explanation of it, to serve as a defeater for a text he suspected Seth may bring up to establish the unlimited positive case. I'm merely guessing.

Turretinfan said...

Tony wrote: "T-Fan seems to be thinking (and possibly anticipating?) that Seth will use this particular passage (as some do) to prove his case that Christ died for more than the elect."
I answer:
Bingo. That's the bulk of the rationale for selecting the verse.

Tony wrote: "On the contrary, all Seth has to do is say this text is neutral, and that his view is, at the very least, compatible with the passage."
I answer: Truth is objective. If Seth agrees that the verse is not a proof for universal atonement, that simplifies matters enormously. I'm not sure from his response that he does.

Tony: If Seth were to try to use this text to prove his position, he could only argue inferentially that God's being the Saviour of all men presupposes that He is sufficient, by means of Christ's sufficient satisfaction, to save all men.
I answer: And if Seth were to try to do that, we could then engage in exegesis to determine whether that's what the text is saying or not.

Tony: But Seth is under no mandate to do that. He may just say it is neutral and move on to other texts he thinks are relevant.
I answer: Unfortunately, under the format as it is, Seth is not the one picking the texts. I'm trying to pick texts that will provide useful clash, but I recognize that in some cases Seth will just say that the text is neutral.

Tony: Each party has a positive case to prove, in addition to posing defeaters to the positive case of the other person. I suspect that T-Fan tabled this Timothy passage, along with his explanation of it, to serve as a defeater for a text he suspected Seth may bring up to establish the unlimited positive case. I'm merely guessing.
I answer:
I did bring it up, because I've heard advocates of universal atonement rely on it in the past. Not Seth, but others. If Seth agrees that it does not provide support for universal atonement, this round is quick and we can move on.

-Turretinfan

Related Posts with Thumbnails