[*] The Rubber Nose of Shame

We’ve been having quite a little imbroglio with the reader we are calling “blueDavid” (to distinguish him from David Gadbois) allegedly over the limits of the atonement. However, the discussion goes all over the place, and the last two entries from blueDavid warrant some front-page coverage. The block quotes are from blueDavid in the meta:
Frank Said:

When you can form an argument that Christ's atonement is only protential and not effectual, bring it.

First, that is not what I said. What I did say was:

"Atonement is sufficient for all. It is unlimited in scope. God died for all men. You have to ignore far too much scripture to take any other postion.
Let’s make sure, then, that we note that blueDavid is an advocate for the actual atonement of every person, and that then God will send some for whom Jesus Christ died to hell.

I’m sure that’s a much more comforting position for some people, but unfortunately I am not one of those people. And I am also pretty sure there is no passage in the Bible which can be construed to say this, but blueDavid may yet come up with one.

On the other hand, he may also not like this characterization of what he has said (because he doesn’t like any characterizations of what he has said), so be aware that he will have some more things to say about this.
....versus I cant use.....

Having said that, it is clear that it is not efficient for all - it is efficient for ony those who believe. A lack of belief does not change God nor does it limit the attonement in its sufficiency"

In summary, what I said is that the atonement is sufficient for all, but effective for only those who believe. Which is a version of limited atonement, just not Calvin's view point.
You can’t reconcile the two things you have just typed, blueDavid. If the atonement is “unlimited in scope”, then all people have been atoned for – but if some people are still sent to hell, this matter of efficiency is a kind of rhetorical sleight of hand. Either you do not understand what the word “atonement” means, or you do not understand what the term “unlimited in scope” means, or you are just knitting together theological buzzwords to get to a place where you think you have a nice-sounding idea of what the Bible teaches.

And let’s be clear before you say I am making fun of you: I think you were probably taught this nonsense, so you are not at fault for inventing it. But you have a responsibility to think about this view scripturally – and if you do, it falls apart pretty quickly.

Would you like to see how? I’d be glad to show you, using two examples of Scripture which you have already tossed into the meta.

For example, you have used these citations:

-the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world (1 john 2:2)
-Who gave himself a ransom for all(Itim2:5-6)

In 1Jn 2, the passage reads:
    My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments. Whoever says "I know him" but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may be sure that we are in him: whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked.
Which is fair enough, I guess: the question is if “propitiation” and “atonement” mean the same thing. I suggest to you that they do not – and that Christ can be the “propitiation” for the sin of every man, woman and child on Earth who ever lived – thus enabling God’s mercy in not striking down the sinner at his first sin and still being just – without having to admit all men to Heaven under the loop hole that Christ has apparently paid all the sin debt.

Somehow the unlimited atonement people always seem to forget that God does actually show mercy to the wicked and is still a God who is holy and just – but don’t have the mojo which can explain why. John explains why right here, and it still doesn’t make the atonement unlimited: it abates the immediate wrath of God for all sinners.

In 1Tim 2, "all people" surely means "all people", right? So Paul was instructing Timothy to pray for every single person becuae Jesus Christ saves every single person because he has paid the ranson for every single person, right?

No? You mean 1Tim 2 doesn't advocate for universal salvation? here: let me help you with something. For the sake of this post only, I am willing to argue that it does mean that Jesus Christ wants every single person to be saved, and that we should therefor pray for every single person, and that the ranson for every single person has been paid by Christ. If that is the case, then I draw the conclusion that no man is going to hell.

You prove that position wrong. With an argument, and not a "nuh-uh".
But back to your challange - I believe it was "bring it", with the threat of being "clowned" if I can't.

Just as an aside, blueDavid, You’re about to get clowned for just saying “well, [assertion]” with no substantiation. You make a bundle of assertions in the meta and have provided scant few methods of supporting such things.

So please bring your argument or your substantiation or your evidence, and leave your thin skin at the door. At this point in the exchange, you’ve gotten a lot of attention from the readers and me, and the way you have used it is to simply say, “well, you’re wrong” as if that would persuade anyone.

On the other hand, a lot of Scripture and a lot of review has been offered you and you have only poo-poo’ed it. The clown is for those who meet courtesy with scorn, and you’re there, bub. That’s not a threat but a fact to which all the readers who have interacted with you so fact can attest.

If you don’t like the editorial policy here, you can find someone else to taunt with “nuh-uh”. And trying to batter me with my good conscience plays like cats on a fence as far as I’m concerned. It gets old quickly when someone who cannot implement his own conscience in a discussion wants to leverage the conscience of others.

lets go to John 12 - where John uses the same word for "world" that he does in 3:16.

12:44 But Jesus shouted out, “The one who believes in me does not believe in me, but in the one who sent me, 12:45 and the one who sees me sees the one who sent me. 12:46 I have come as a light into the world, so that everyone who believes in me should not remain in darkness. 12:47 If anyone hears my words and does not obey them, I do not judge him. For I have not come to judge the world, but to save the world. 12:48 The one who rejects me and does not accept my words has a judge; the word I have spoken will judge him at the last day. 12:49 For I have not spoken from my own authority, but the Father himself who sent me has commanded me what I should say and what I should speak. 12:50 And I know that his commandment is eternal life. Thus the things I say, I say just as the Father has told me.”

That seems to be a fairly clear, scriptural support for my position, from the bible.
Why, what a stunning exegesis! Who could possibly argue with ... oh wait – you don’t actually give us any exegesis of connect this passage to your point in any way at all, do you?

See: as I read this passage, there is no doubt that Christ has come into “the world” as light. That’s John 1, for sure. The question is whether the word “world” is a one-hit wonder, and any English dictionary will tell you that’s not ever close to true.

In English, the noun “world” has 14 distinct meanings. Not very surprisingly, that’s about the same count in Greek. So the word’s meaning is indicated by the context. The wooden use of a concordance doesn’t prove out anything, and pasting a verse in doesn’t prove anything. The passage is evidence of something, but what? Does it even speak to atonement for the whole world? Where?

When you can answer those questions, you will then have an argument, blueDavid. Until then, you’re jonesing for clown.

One last question Frank - exactly where in scripture is it appropriate to mock, misqoute and then threaten others?
Like I said, trying to appeal to my conscience when you cannot demonstrate your own leaves me a little flat. I would, however, note that I have not misquoted you, I have not threatened you, and as far as mocking goes, identifying what you are doing is hardly mocking. Why do you make a clown of yourself by trying to scare people with the accusation they are mean and then toss Scripture around as if some passage of historical narrative (however inerrant) is actually an expository essay? Why can’t you bridge the gap between genres with reasonable discourse?

Perhaps it is because I am a meanie and a jerk, but I doubt it. I didn’t write your responses: you did.