Home
« Home | Next: Zeal Without Knowledge »
| Next: Time out... »
| Next: In Reply... »
| Next: Faith and Understanding »
| Next: So I’m thinking… »
| Next: In reply… »
| Next: A few things… »
| Next: Church Discipline – Hypocrisy, Apostasy and the Ge... »
| Next: So I’m thinking… »
| Next: Church Discipline – One or two witnesses, those wh... »

Thoughts

Topics

Archives


Subscribe

Feed Link

Study Help

Real Help

    Needed Prayers


Links

About

About Kc


Awards

Quotes

    "You are really cool you are married to an European!! How cooler can you be??"
    Fisherman Pecheur

    "Smarty Pants"
    Mad Matt

    "Oh, you did not ask for Bonhoeffer's opinion did you? You wanted mine..."
    the SOFYST

    "You are like the master at this "feelings" stuff!
    Kind Kristi

    "I enjoy your comments, but they are always delightfully enigmatic"
    Dyspraxic Fundamentalist


Sunday, April 30, 2006

In Reply...

Bobby Grow has once again challenged the community of faith for their perspective and insight into the scripture. In his most recent article titled, “The Gospel of John and "Limited Atonement”” Bobby addresses the text in John 3:17-19 and ask what bearing these verses have on the doctrine of limited atonement. He closes with the following;

Help me out here, Calvinists, Arminians, Free-Gracers, and you "Biblicists" out there; what is John talking about in this passage? And how does it relate to God's "election"

While I have fought diligently to avoid being labeled as anything other than a believer, I suppose I would consider myself a “Biblicists” to some degree; hence my reply;

Doesn’t this verse reinforce the whole of scripture that salvation is of God and damnation is of man? The Great Debate is always framed in terms of who is responsible for salvation and from that limited framework it is easy to conclude that since God is the author and finisher of our salvation then He alone decides who will and who won’t be redeemed. If we change the focus from who is responsible for salvation to who is responsible for damnation then these verses only reinforce what was made evident in the garden; that pride drives men to reject God; their choice, not His. Adam’s evil deed condemned him and he chose to hide from God. When God called him he answered and God made provision (Genesis 3:7-21). Had God never called wouldn’t he have remained hidden, condemned already by his own choice? Had Adam been content to remain hidden and not answered God’s call would he have remained without provision, already condemned? The debate then becomes about who is condemned; who does God call and who will answer and on this the scripture is clear. Do we then conclude that God allows evil deeds? God allows men to choose and through foreknowledge of their choice made provision (Acts 2:23). Our election is corporate through Jesus Christ according to the foreknowledge of God, not fore choice (1st Peter 1:2). So while I might continue to question the extent of the atonement, limited by foreknowledge or complete in preventing God’s wrath on mankind, I am once more assured it extends to whoever believes in Christ Jesus.

Labels:

6 Comments:

Blogger Dyspraxic Fundamentalist said...

I certainly agree with your view of election.

The Scriptures are clear that Christ died for all.

God Bless

Matthew

4/30/2006 03:16:00 PM  
Blogger Kc said...

Thanks Matthew. For the record, in my heart I believe the atonement is complete but I would not argue the point.

4/30/2006 04:18:00 PM  
Blogger Rose~ said...

Hi KC,
I really appreciate Bobby's posts and I think it is interesting how you post over here as a result of being "inspired" by his posts. You would not argue the point? I am so surprised! ;~)

5/01/2006 09:27:00 AM  
Blogger Kc said...

hehe Rose, I think Bobby really has some good thoughts and if my reply's help to highlight his thinking I'm glad. No, I wouldn't find anything to argue with in his article. ;-)

5/01/2006 09:33:00 AM  
Blogger jazzycat said...

If the atonement were meant for all humans that every lived, then the power of the atonement is limited unless one believes in universalism. If the atonement were only meant for believers (that God invervened and regenerated) then the extent of the atonement is limited.

If the atonement only made salvation possible (limited power), then there was a very real possibility that Christ would have died in vain and none would have been saved. Do we really think this is the case?

Jazzycat

Jazzycat

5/07/2006 07:13:00 AM  
Blogger Kc said...

Jazzycat welcome and thanks for your thoughts. I think it's possible that the atonement is the only reason God did not destroy all of mankind.

5/07/2006 08:30:00 PM  

Post a Comment