Doctrines like Limited Atonement - why?
- Thread starter LeeLoving
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
No, what Pelagius was claimed to put forward goes well beyond free will. The claim that was condemned is the claim that we are basically good and through our own works can achieve righteousness. John Cassian wrote the reply that is closest to the historical position of the church on free will and is in agreement with Justin Martyr, Jerome, and every church leader who wrote on free will prior to Augustine's blunder with Romans 5. The only one who even comes close is Tertulian, and he was heterodox a number of issues. Pelagius himself in his times had his teachings found orthodox not only by the two trials where he actually represented his own position, but also before the pope who had the opportunity to read his defense before being pressured and bribed.
All free-will believers are Pelagian in that they choose to save themselves through obedience.
The great reformed boogieman. When they can no longer argue the Scriptures because their proof texts are discarded for the pretexts they are inevitably everyone who disagrees with their view is "pelagian"
Now that's a loaded question if I ever saw one. The choice is not as black and white as "God does all the work, dragging you against any choice and you have no say in the matter. You're either saved because God decided you're a piece of trash he wanted to keep, or you're trash that God decided to destroy" and "We, on our own power, can achieve righteousness and do everything that pleases God." There is lots of middle ground, and whether or not Pelagius actually put forward what Augustine claims he did is uncertain since all we have on the matter is Augustine and other critics writings and Augustine in his dispute with the Donatists exagerated and distorted their positions. Just as you're distorting the positions here.
Believing on the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation is not a work of the law. The scripture states to repent toward God and have faith toward Lord Jesus Christ.
Acts 20:21 Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.
Repentance is not a work, but a change of mind. It is not forced, but a choice.
I don't know what Pelagius actually taught, so I can't say if I'd agree with him or not. But I'm not really in agreement with either of them as they are commonly understood. My position is along the lines of Cassian and the Eastern Orthodox church. Wounded, but not destroyed.
As I said, Scripture proves scripture. If Jesus's sacrifice took away the sins of all mankind, then all mankind will be in heaven. Jesus's purpose in going to the cross was to take away all of the sins of those that God gave him and he accomplished his purpose and said "it is finished".
Yet 1 John clearly says it was enough for all mankind. So maybe your understanding of what happened at the cross isn't right? I used to see the same conundrum, but I couldn't rectify the love of God with God selecting the saved(because that by default means He's selecting the damned, and in fact seems to make Him the author of sin) that's required for a limited atonement. What changed my mind was a re-read of Leviticus along with a commentary by Gordon Wenham. It totally changed my ideas about what sin is and that changed my ideas about what the atonement is.
All of these acts of man that you have mentioned are true, but they were all performed after they were born again with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The natural man would not perform any of these actions, because they were the actions of people who have been born of the Spirit. The natural man has no desire to, and indeed, cannot do any of these actions because they are actions of the spiritual man, that has already been born of the Spirit in the new birth.
This remark shows that YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE GOSPEL.
Only those who obey the Gospel will be in Heaven.
25 Now to Him that is of power to stablish you according to my Gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, 26 But now is made manifest, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: 27 To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen. (Romans 16:25-27)
What is this "obedience of faith"? It is obedience of the Gospel. Obedience of God's commandment to all men to repent and believer on the Lord Jesus Christ. But as Paul points out by divine inspiration:
15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the Gospel of peace, and bring Glad Tidings of good things! 16 But they have not all obeyed the Gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? (Rom 10:15,16)
Scripture proves scripture. You mistake was consulting someone's interpretation of the scriptures. God gave man a free choice as how man wanted to live his life here on earth, and man choose to live his life in a sinful manner, rather that seeking God. Psalms 53:2.
Mankind chose to not seek God, and therefore, selected himself to be damned.
Scripture does interpret Scripture, the commentary didn't give me an interpretation. It gave me historical information and information about the language so I could draw my own conclusion. What happens often among reformed individuals is they make an imposition on the text that it conform to their notions rather than conforming to what it is. The reformers read it with an overlay of medeival court notions borrowed from Augustine's conceptions of Roman courts and then interpreted with that overlay. If we are to let Scripture speak for itself we must get as close to its context as possible and that requires learning about the history and culture that it was presented to. Your doctrine isn't coming from Scripture in its own context but reading a false reading of Paul into the entire book that pits many verses against each other and lends to rampant confusion.
King Agrippa did not have the Holy Spirit, yet understood the OT Scriptures. He knew of the promised deliverer. He was almost persuaded to be a Christian.
Acts 26
22 Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come:
23 That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.
24 And as he thus spake for himself, Festus said with a loud voice, Paul, thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad.
25 But he said, I am not mad, most noble Festus; but speak forth the words of truth and soberness.
26 For the king knoweth of these things, before whom also I speak freely: for I am persuaded that none of these things are hidden from him; for this thing was not done in a corner.
27 King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest.
28 Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.