Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
Debate: "Is Limited Atonement Biblical? | Austin Brown vs. Ricardo Escobar.
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 июн 2024
- An historic debate! Two men from the Reformed tradition face off against Limited Atonement. The thesis is: "Is Limited Atonement Biblical?" Brown takes the negative. Escobar, the positive. This is a true Reformed date as both appeal and draw from the Reformed tradition. Tune in to this epic debate!
Buy Austin Brown's book against Limited Atonement: a.co/d/hTVA4pi
Ricardo Escobar's RUclips channel: @The_Biblical_Layman
#christiandebate #debate #theology #reformedtheology #calvinism #tulip #atonement
Support by becoming a Patreon member!
patreon.com/Me....
Method Ministries puts out content that is focused on teaching the Biblical Method of God's Word, to spread Scriptural holiness throughout the land, and to teach Scriptural Christianity. If you're looking for an online ministry that can help you with this path then subscribe to the channel!
Also subscribe on Spotify and Apple!
Follow on Instagram, Facebook, Twitter.
Like this video! Subscribe to our channel! Comment your thoughts on the debate!
Beautiful “garden paths” laid by Austin.
Very nice skill set in the debating field.
Would genuinely like to see more debates from this individual
Thank you, kindly. I would like more opportunities in the future. So, hopefully, some doors open.
Just found the channel. This was a great debate! I wish there were more calvinist like austin brown. A balenced view no extremes and polite about it. Look forward to more of these
Great to have you!
More from Austin Brown and classical-moderate Calvinists on my Channel!
Very interesting and good debate. I am for sure more open to universal view. Austin had a great cross examination and the inconsistencies and holes strongly came out of the limited atonement view.
The “hypothetical universalist” view should really be the default view in the Reformed camp as it’s the most biblically consistent and it fits well within the broader implications of Reformed theology. More Calvinists need to realize we don’t have to embrace limited atonement.
Bless Ricardo’s heart!
I don’t think he realizes it yet…
Every single passage he read and/or reads to prove his points can easily be understood from the Universal Atonement position.
Having listened to The Biblical Layman’s channel a number of times over the past few months, my honest assessment is that he has a good heart, and I strongly believe he has true and holy passion for the Lord.
Where he falls short is that he seemingly cannot comprehend the idea that his opposition can read his proof texts and easily find a contextual interpretation that fits their own viewpoints. In other words, he’s in a mental bubble.
Essentially, he’s a parrot. He knows how to state the positive of his position, but has absolutely no understanding of his interlocutors (or their best objections) on even the most amoeboid level.
Nice guy, good heart, and I like him. But, with respect, he’s not very good at understanding (much less “steel-manning”) his opposition in order to meet them at their best.
Regardless, even as a non-Calvinist, I really like the guy. He’s nice. Just not too good at understanding opposing views or their objections.
Thank you for this debate! Both debaters did a good job representing their sides. I hope this debate causes more Calvinists to look into those in their own tradition who didn’t hold to Limited satisfaction and go to the scripture to see which of the two is more rooted in scripture. I believe they will find that it is the Reformed universal satisfaction view.
Austin brown is smiling at the 1:38:40 mark because he knows he absolutely caught his opponent in a contradiction and totally has the debate in the bag 🎉
The 1:21:20 mark onward is a blood bath. Estrada doesn’t even see the illogical nature of his arguments
If Brown is appealing to the Canons of Dort as his standard or an authority, he can’t make any of the arguments he made.
@@TheStuffBetweenMyEarsWhy is that? The Canons of Dort were affirmed and signed by both strict limitarians and those who held to universal satisfaction.
Why wouldn’t he be able to appeal to Dort?
@@ProtestantPerspective1517 Yes. They were. The first scenario Brown pitched in cross examination of the 100 men, is reduced to absurdity by Dort. Doctrine 1 Rejection 5. You have to go outside of Dort to make that objection and people do. Leighton Flowers raises it all the time. 😅
@@TheStuffBetweenMyEars how does the first head rejection 5 contradict what Austin was saying.
Again, both strict limitarians and those who held to universal satisfaction, like Austin, fully affirmed the canons of Dort.
@@ProtestantPerspective1517 I’m not saying Brown can’t appeal to Dort. Of course he can, I want him too. But so can those holding to limited atonement. Dort doesn’t answer the atonement question, so for either side to attack the other it has to be done beyond Dort either from scripture or from reason. So when Brown raised his philosophical objections in debate, especially “grounding” and “double jeopardy,” a sufficient defense could have been generated from what Dort affirmed.
I think rejection 5 is *closest* to Brown’s grounding question, which ignored the category of reprobation, ignored the required working of the Holy Spirit in the elect and presupposed that persons have some ability to respond to a universal offer of Jesus blood. Rejection 5 says this, “…that therefore faith, the obedience of faith, holiness, godliness and perseverance are not fruits of the unchangeable election unto glory, but are conditions, which, being required beforehand, were foreseen as being met by those who will be fully elected, and are causes without which the unchangeable election to glory does not occur.” This seems to reflect Brown’s line of thinking given his presuppositions of the argument. Again, I’m not saying Brown doesn’t hold to Dort. But in order to raise this objection, Dort was completely abandoned.
My sincere apology, Ricardo, for saying Estrada!!! Early on in when I first heard of you, I thought you were Estrada, and that stuck in my head for some dumb reason. Sorry, brother!
Hey Austin, could you please share more about the majority position in the OPC in 1948? I'm very interested to read more on that.
@DordtyHylemorph Greetings. Yes, just Google well meant offer report OPC. That should bring it up. I would put a link here but RUclips will likely block my reply.
What are your thoughts on Edward Polhill's view on the atonement?
@@Ldgreggbell I am quite favorable to it, given what I have read from him.
@@Ldgreggbell I haven't read a lot by him, but his short treatise on the topic is golden!
1.Christ came to seek and save those that are lost
2.All are lost.
Therefore Christ came to seek and save all.
Luke 19:10 (KJV) For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.
Romans 3:23 (KJV) For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Or as the Calvinist say, that Christ Came to only seek and save the elect… and therefore all others are not lost And have no need of a sin sacrifice. 🙄
1:21:05…. begins a moment of silence for Ricardo…RIP RIKKI
You fought hard and I hope you learn something through this.
I’m glad God use a Calvinist to show you your error on limited atonement.
Hopefully this debate experience blessed you
Austin was so nice. He just kept moving on when he had Ricardo at a loss. This is a great presentation for the lack of good Biblical arguments for limited atonement.
Yo!! Let’s go!!! I’m ready for this!!!
Me too!
The biblical layman guy got destroyed but it’s ok
Austin did really well. You could see Ricardo wrestling with answering some of the questions in a way consistent with his view of the atonement rather than the plain obvious truth.
I appreciate how both debaters admitted struggling with certain passages. I appreciate this humility.
Regarding Atonement. I also found it odd that we use a Latin word (with all it's meanings) to translate a Greek word. In Luk 18:13, it carries a very different significance.
This was too short. I know Mr.Estrada has way more to say on the topic.
The best debates always leave us wanting more perhaps!
There is another unproven term conversion: his people means the elect. No where in the Greek is laos used to denote "elect."
Just a small point. In a couple of places Kosmos is used hyperbolically. Eg., John 12:19 So the Pharisees said to one another, "See, this is getting us nowhere. Look how the whole world has gone after him!"
Here (wicked) Pharisees, were exaggerating with malicious intent. The sense here is a hyped-up generalization. That hyperbole cannot be taken as a baseline definition for the normal and proper meaning of Kosmos.
Romans 1:8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is being reported all over the world.
This is another generalization, without malice, given to emphasise the power of their faith. Clearly, obviously, Paul did not mean literally the whole world geographically, globally, had heard of the report. Or even, every nook and crook of the Roman Empire had heard of their faith. Nor is Paul saying, 'all kinds of men throughout the world had heard their report'. It is simply a generalization, a hyperbole given for effect.
To painfully illustrate the obvious, in the first example, the sense is like this, "Heck guys a whole truck load of folks are following this dude..." The second is like, "Don't you guys know that everyone from Bittannia to Assyria has heard about you guys."
I have to say that any attempt to use these 2 phrases to establish some baseline definition of Kosmos in Paul or in John is extremely wrong-headed. We have to be able to distinguish between literal and non-literal usage of words. And non-literal uses should not be used to define or determine literal uses of the same word. That would be to invert the way we use language.
Wow! What a great debate! 🎉
Glad you enjoyed it! Don’t forget to share!
It would be fun to find out how they know if Jesus died for them.
Since I affirm universal satisfaction (aka, Christ died for all), then you and I can be sure that Jesus died for us 🙂
Jesus said you can't believe because you are not of my sheep
Since God has chosen His people before the foundation of the world he would not need to die for everyone because it is not like he better die for all just in case someone of the non elect might figure it out and come to salvation. The Unregenerate are spiritual dead and can't please God
I am watching this with my friends. Good luck, gentlemen. The winner has been predestined. Get it lol
Yep! 😅
Good to have you my man! And I get it! Haha.
This shows the problem with trying to believe that the gospel is an offer. You have to add extra wills for God. Then you have to add different types of love because you think God has other wills. When it fails because you make God sound bipolar you use the canard of hyper Calvinism.
Austin, you mentioned that those who do not accept God's offer pay for their own sins. It is my contention that the unsaved never actually pay for a single sin because they are not qualified or enabled to pay for sin as Christ was in that his sinless life qualified Jesus to make that payment. How would you respond to that thought?
Maybe you could amplify your question since I am not exactly sure what you mean. Nevertheless, let me say that I believe that sinners will be judged for the deeds they committed, and that they will be punished for breaking God's law.
I'm up to about min 12. Who are the brothers? Is it valid to convert the term brothers to mean the elect, many of whom are not yet actual brothers (ie., all the elect who live, have lived, and yet to believe and yet to live)? Surely it just means believers, brothers in union with Christ; vital organic union? And why are the Children of Abraham redefined to mean the elect? Why cant it mean the faithful Jews and engrafted Gentiles of then and/or now? So many assumptions just smuggled in. I see no justification for this continued term conversion.
And Laos just means people. There is no extraordinary between the laos in Hebs 2 and the laos in Matt 1:21 as if both mean elect. E.g, is the writer here really saying, Jesus had to made like his elect...."?
Also purpose clauses can be more complex. A hina clause is normally a would, should, could, it is not an absolute certain outcome; it's probable.
At the 1:24:00 mark, Austin got the “shark eyes”
He smells blood in the water😅
It doesn't matter whether, or not, a 'doctrine' is biblical: is it of the God we see embodied in the young male Jew, Jesus of Nazareth? I know many churchgoers think bible=God: but this is not so according to the 'doctrine of scripture' of the Church of England (see Professor Alan Richardson's entry on the topic in the volume he edited, when Dean of York, 'A DICTIONARY OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY'). Sure, as children we learn of Jesus from the Gospels: then, as we grow older, we learn more from Paul and the other letter-writers (even though many of their documents were earlier, chronologically, than the Gospels). But, for the mature Christian, there comes a point when the risen Christ 'indwells' her/him. At that point, the ENTIRETY of scripture is taken as pointing to the Messiah: and it is in that context thatr scripture needs to be treated, and read.
It absolutely matters whether or not doctrines are Biblical. The Bible IS what God has SAID to us. Doctrine is the understanding of what God teaches us in scripture, utilizing the full revelation of what He has taught.
What are elevating over God’s Word when it comes to understanding God and His will?
@@thebark_barx6231 Read the entry I recommebnded. Then you might not use the term "God's Wo0rd" so lightly, or blasphemously.
You sound as if I should take your text as the standard or any author from the Church of England or any denomination for that matter. There are too many places in Scripture that attribute itself to being the Word of God . We aren’t saying that Scripture is God however we are saying that it is the very Words of God , that they’re God breathed. Not on mere speculation but according to God. And if you’re a “Red letter” only person who only considers Jesus’ Words and being God’s Word then He Himself treated Scripture as being what we are saying.
@@thebark_barx6231 Jesus of Nazareth most DEFINITELY did not treat scripture as you do. Had he done so, he would have been handing out the rocks for stoning the adulterous woman (which is what you do!) rather than challenging anyone who is "without sin" to weaponise scripture as they were doing.
"Determine, by God's word, which is correct"
Did you mean to say, "determine, by God's determination, which is correct"? ;)
God everlasting love for His people was demonstrated in all its glory on the cross, when Christ 'was made sin' for us ; Him who knew no sin, that they would be clothed in His spotless robe of perfection.
That great weight of sin was put behind God's back when Christ died in the chosen race's place. Christ justified/reconciled all for whom He died for at Calvary ; one is only justified by Holy, Pure, and Deified blood, without which you will perish in your sin.
Every conditionalist - those who make salvation a work of both God & man - are explicitly denying the efficacy of the atonement and it's very purpose. They are blinded by the god of this world and only a miracle of grace will save them.
John 11:52
Christ loses nobody. Christian Universalism (I don’t like that term) is the gospel.
If you’re believing election how come you believe Jesus Christ died for none believer? And also if you believe Ephesians 2:8-9 grace and faith gift from God ;not all people get the gift so that why’s someone believe unlimited knowing people are in hell.
My Question for you- people dies with out knowing Jesus Christ I mean never heard at all so are you saying that Jesus Christ died for the sins?
@danielsemere4971 God also shows love and kindness to people who are not elect. It should be no trouble at all for us to affirm that Christ died for all, while leaving some to remain obstinate in their unbelief. I would submit that you are assuming things that the bible does not grant.
@@austinbrown6829 if he doesn’t choose them what is the point died for none believe;he is not judged them by not believing he judged them by work.
This is what the bible teaches!
@danielsemere4971 Not sure what you meant to write, but it is pretty jumbled. Regardless, if the debate wasn't persuasive to you, whatever is said here will likely fare no better. Cheers!
...what use is this discussion to a hungry child?
What Grace do you find in the parsing of Redemption ?
What good is legalism beyond the grave?
And how, in your comfortable homes, with your comfortable lives, are you manifesting The Kingdom?
And where is the Indwelling of Christ?
Whennyour spiritual Inheritance is so broken.
And you worship in ways that your Fathers did not know?
I see NONE.
Ironically, the exact same questions could be asked of your uncharitable questions to us.
Hey Austin. I struggle with english so I couldn't understand your view on atonement in its entirety. But you believe in a universal atonement and you believe in a universal and genuine offer for everyone. So there is a remedy for everyone, according to you.
But the part of your view that I'm not sure I understood well is that although the offer is there and is genuine, God doesn't really want everyone to take the gift, and He does not allow anyone to take it. The gift is there for anyone, but the intent is not the same for everyone. For the elect, He really wants them to take the gift and they will, but for the non-elect the gift is there and is truly available and truly offered, but He doesn't really want them to take it and they won't. So for the non elect, He genuinely offer something that He doesn't want them to take. Is that it ?
Greetings. Good question.
There is a real sense in which God wants the non-elect to believe. I think the Scriptures require us to affirm this. But it is also true, as you point out, that God does not do all that He could to save them. Someone could say that this is unfair. Or bad. Or inconsistent. My response would be that it is biblical. It is what the various data points require us to affirm.
So God really does desire the salvation of all men in a very real sense, but for wise and holy purposes, He does not overcome the unbelief of everyone.
@@austinbrown6829 thank you for your answer. Would you agree that if limited atonement was true, then the non elect couldn't be held accountable for their sins because the only thing that could free them from their sinful nature (the cross) is blocked from them ? Like God would have blocked them access to the only way to be free from their sinful nature, but still hold them accountable ? That makes absolutely no sense.
Everyone agree that God commands everyone everywhere to "repent". True repentancle implies to turn from sins and believe in Jesus as one's Lord and Saviour... Would God ask someone to believe in something that is not there ? He would block the non elect access to Him, but still command them to believe in Him, even if He has nothing to offer them, absolutely no good intents towards them, only harm. That is not even close to making sense. I can't believe there are people who strive that hard to believe that limited atonement is biblical, then making others believe it, and saying that this is a wonderful doctrine.
@@simonvallee718I believe God would be just to condemn them without providing an atonement, like God does the demons. But I agree with you that it would be an insincere offer if God offered salvation without providing an atonement. It would be like false advertising.
And it would be very weird to hold someone accountable for rejecting something that was never really available.
@@austinbrown6829 He didn't have to do this. But the problem is that outside of God, good doesn't exist. So how could God hold someone accountable for being evil, if the only way of not being evil doesn't exist ? Sinners sin willfully and they love to be that way. But if the source of good is not there for them, how can you ask them to be good ?
I am willing to accept calvinism, there are things that they say that I can understand and agree. But the more I think about the implications, the less it makes sense.
@@simonvallee718 I think I am struggling to understand your question precisely. Let me bullet a few things and allow you to clarify.
God is the source of all good. Sin turns away from this goodness. Thus, sin results in darkness and evil and blindness, unholiness, etc. It results in what God is not.
Since men are moral agents endowed with freedom and rationality, they choose to spurn the Light. God calls them to come back, but some raise their fists. These men can be justly condemned for their sin and rebellion. It is their stubborn refusal to repent.
Could you help me understand where you see a problem with this?
Naturally, God overcomes the unbelief in some men with extraordinary light. This is very gracious.
I lay down my life for the sheep. You are not my sheep. Limited atonement is right, you just wont accept it.
I agree brother!
What do you think of this: On the cross, Christ death reversed the curse of Adam, Him being the better Adam, but the benefits of the cross apply to those who believe. So, I believe the cross is not limited in its offer but in its application.
My position has a particularstic component and a general aspect. It would be correct to say that Christ laid down his life in a special sense for the elect.
The nature of satisfaction is not something that is broken up into pieces, but it is a unified whole. And of infinite value. So one can have special intent for the sheep while recognizing that Christ paid an objective price for humanity.
The double jeopardy argument would be the thing to counter this... if it worked. But I don't believe that it does.
Absolutely not. That verse in John was before Jesus atoning death and it was directed to the believing Jews vs the Pharisees. Misapplication
@@Finch1993 so Jesus doesn’t have gentile sheep?
I have sheep not of THIS FOLD. I must bring them ALSO. They WILL HAVE 1 SHEPARD