The deadly consequences of denying limited atonement !

beloved57

beloved57

Well-known member
PneumaPsucheSoma said:
What if?.... Limited Atonement and Unlimited Atonement represents a false dichotomy based upon a false beginning premise because few understand Hamartiology at its foundation.

Jesus didn't die for some OR all men. He was made (poieo) sin (hamartia, singular anarthrous). This means He died for the sin state of being of all mankind for all ages, but that it is only efficacious unto salvation for those whom He has sovereignly foreknown.

What if?... Both "sides" of this modern binary are wrong by degree as Perspectivism, etc. Calvin and Arminius... both wrong.

Some? Yes. All? Yes. Simultaneously true. A paradox like many other false dichotomies of modern doctrine.

(Shrugs) Carry on, warring from the ditches on both sides of the road of truth.
Click to expand...
Did you read the points in the Op and understand them?

Sent from my 5054N using TheologyOnline mobile app
 
PneumaPsucheSoma

PneumaPsucheSoma

TOL Subscriber
Yes. :)
Atonement is simultaneously Limited and Unlimited. Christ was made (poieo) sin (hamartia, singular anarthrous).

He died for the sin condition of all mankind, and it is only efficacious for those who are granted repentance (the noun), etc.

Simul.
 
T

Truster

New member
PneumaPsucheSoma said:
Yes. :)
Atonement is simultaneously Limited and Unlimited. Christ was made (poieo) sin (hamartia, singular anarthrous).

He died for the sin condition of all mankind, and it is only efficacious for those who are granted repentance (the noun), etc.

Simul.
Click to expand...

I'd love to see you turning right and left simultaneously. :rotfl:
 
D

daqq

Well-known member
PneumaPsucheSoma said:
What if?.... Limited Atonement and Unlimited Atonement represents a false dichotomy based upon a false beginning premise because few understand Hamartiology at its foundation.

Jesus didn't die for some OR all men. He was made (poieo) sin (hamartia, singular anarthrous). This means He died for the sin state of being of all mankind for all ages, but that it is only efficacious unto salvation for those whom He has sovereignly foreknown.

What if?... Both "sides" of this modern binary are wrong by degree as Perspectivism, etc. Calvin and Arminius... both wrong.

Some? Yes. All? Yes. Simultaneously true. A paradox like many other false dichotomies of modern doctrine.

(Shrugs) Carry on, warring from the ditches on both sides of the road of truth.
Click to expand...

If you investigate the way in which that phrase from 2Cor 5:21 can be utilized in the Septuagint, as per sacrificial offerings, it may become apparent that what Paul may actually be saying is that "he made an offering for sin", (αμαρτιαν, a sin offering, εποιησεν, he made, he did, he performed), instead of "became sin" or "was made sin".

Example:

Exodus 29:36 LXX
36 και το μοσχαριον της αμαρτιας ποιησεις τη ημερα του καθαρισμου και καθαριεις το θυσιαστηριον εν τω αγιαζειν σε επ αυτω και χρισεις αυτο ωστε αγιασαι αυτο

και το μοσχαριον της αμαρτιας = and the calf of the sin-offering
ποιησεις = you shall perform / make / do / offer / sacrifice

Exodus 29:36 LXX Brenton English Translation
36 And thou shalt sacrifice the calf of the sin-offering on the day of purification, and thou shalt purify the altar when thou dost perform consecration upon it, and thou shalt anoint it so as to sanctify it.

Hamartia is sometimes used not just for saying "sin" but also "sin-offering", (as is also true for the equivalent Hebrew word). The question therefore becomes; is Paul the Pharisee of Pharisees using more of a Hebrew minded sense in 2Cor 5:21? It does make a difference in our understanding because there is no sin in Messiah and he certainly did not "become sin for us" in the way that most of the mainstream imagines it in modern times when reading that statement from Paul.
 
T

Truster

New member
daqq said:
If you investigate the way in which that phrase from 2Cor 5:21 can be utilized in the Septuagint, as per sacrificial offerings, it may become apparent that what Paul may actually be saying is that "he made an offering for sin", (αμαρτιαν, a sin offering, εποιησεν, he made, he did, he performed), instead of "became sin" or "was made sin".

Example:

Exodus 29:36 LXX
36 και το μοσχαριον της αμαρτιας ποιησεις τη ημερα του καθαρισμου και καθαριεις το θυσιαστηριον εν τω αγιαζειν σε επ αυτω και χρισεις αυτο ωστε αγιασαι αυτο

και το μοσχαριον της αμαρτιας = and the calf of the sin-offering
ποιησεις = you shall perform / make / do / offer / sacrifice

Exodus 29:36 LXX Brenton English Translation
36 And thou shalt sacrifice the calf of the sin-offering on the day of purification, and thou shalt purify the altar when thou dost perform consecration upon it, and thou shalt anoint it so as to sanctify it.

Hamartia is sometimes used not just for saying "sin" but also "sin-offering", (as is also true for the equivalent Hebrew word). The question therefore becomes; is Paul the Pharisee of Pharisees using more of a Hebrew minded sense in 2Cor 5:21? It does make a difference in our understanding because there is no sin in Messiah and he certainly did not "become sin for us" in the way that most of the mainstream imagines it in modern times when reading that statement from Paul.
Click to expand...

The correct translation of Cor 5:21 is: " For He hath made him sin in our behalf, who knew no sin; that we might become the justness of Elohim in him".

Get this, "HE MADE HIM SIN." Not He made him a sin offering.
 
D

daqq

Well-known member
Truster said:
The correct translation of Cor 5:21 is: " For He hath made him sin in our behalf, who knew no sin; that we might become the justness of Elohim in him".

Get this, "HE MADE HIM SIN." Not He made him a sin offering.
Click to expand...

If you would like my rendering of that passage I can give it but rest assured it does not agree with what you do in your house.
 
PneumaPsucheSoma

PneumaPsucheSoma

TOL Subscriber
Truster said:
The correct translation of Cor 5:21 is: " For He hath made him sin in our behalf, who knew no sin; that we might become the justness of Elohim in him".

Get this, "HE MADE HIM SIN." Not He made him a sin offering.
Click to expand...

Yes, of course He was not made "the" sin, as condition and state of being by nature.

That's why hamartia is singular anarthrous instead of singular articular. He was made every quality, characteristic, aspect, and functional activity of mankind's sin state of being. He wasn't made the sin condition.

Few English speakers have any real comprehension of Greek anarthrous nouns, instead creating such false dichotomies and binaries of doctrine from limited understanding.
 
PneumaPsucheSoma

PneumaPsucheSoma

TOL Subscriber
The limited and unlimited facets are merely aspects of atonement; just as synergism (appropriately understood) is merely an apsect of monergism.
 
PneumaPsucheSoma

PneumaPsucheSoma

TOL Subscriber
daqq said:
If you investigate the way in which that phrase from 2Cor 5:21 can be utilized in the Septuagint, as per sacrificial offerings, it may become apparent that what Paul may actually be saying is that "he made an offering for sin", (αμαρτιαν, a sin offering, εποιησεν, he made, he did, he performed), instead of "became sin" or "was made sin".

Example:

Exodus 29:36 LXX
36 και το μοσχαριον της αμαρτιας ποιησεις τη ημερα του καθαρισμου και καθαριεις το θυσιαστηριον εν τω αγιαζειν σε επ αυτω και χρισεις αυτο ωστε αγιασαι αυτο

και το μοσχαριον της αμαρτιας = and the calf of the sin-offering
ποιησεις = you shall perform / make / do / offer / sacrifice

Exodus 29:36 LXX Brenton English Translation
36 And thou shalt sacrifice the calf of the sin-offering on the day of purification, and thou shalt purify the altar when thou dost perform consecration upon it, and thou shalt anoint it so as to sanctify it.

Hamartia is sometimes used not just for saying "sin" but also "sin-offering", (as is also true for the equivalent Hebrew word). The question therefore becomes; is Paul the Pharisee of Pharisees using more of a Hebrew minded sense in 2Cor 5:21? It does make a difference in our understanding because there is no sin in Messiah and he certainly did not "become sin for us" in the way that most of the mainstream imagines it in modern times when reading that statement from Paul.
Click to expand...

This actually beautifully depicts the singular anarthrous construct of hamartia. :)
 
T

Truster

New member
PneumaPsucheSoma said:
Yes, of course He was not made "the" sin, as condition and state of being by nature.

That's why hamartia is singular anarthrous instead of singular articular. He was made every quality, characteristic, aspect, and functional activity of mankind's sin state of being. He wasn't made the sin condition.

Few English speakers have any real comprehension of Greek anarthrous nouns, instead creating such false dichotomies and binaries of doctrine from limited understanding.
Click to expand...

If Messiah was not made sin on behalf of sinners then sin was not punished in the flesh and we* are not the justness of Elohim in Him. Perish the thought.

we* the redeemed.
 
D

daqq

Well-known member
PneumaPsucheSoma said:
This actually beautifully depicts the singular anarthrous construct of hamartia. :)
Click to expand...

It's good to see you back even though we disagree on some other things. You always read what people write and respond intelligently according to your understanding of the scripture; which is quite rare these days on internet forum boards. And, yes, I agree with your response: one sacrifice upon one occasion for all those willing to receive the Testimony and wash their robes in it. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top