# 1 Cor 8:11 and Rom 14:15, 20 - Limited Atonement and Perseverance of the Saints?



## pgwolv (Oct 1, 2021)

> *1 Cor 8*: "*7 *However, not all possess this knowledge. But some, through former association with idols, eat food as really offered to an idol, and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. *8 *Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do. *9 *But take care that this right of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. *10 *For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol’s temple, will he not be encouraged, if his conscience is weak, to eat food offered to idols? *11 *And so by your knowledge this weak person is *destroyed, the brother for whom Christ died*. *12 *Thus, sinning against your brothers and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. *13 *Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble."
> 
> *Rom 14*: "*13 *Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother. *14 *I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean. *15 *For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. By what you eat, do not *destroy the one for whom Christ died*. *16 *So do not let what you regard as good be spoken of as evil. *17 *For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. *18 *Whoever thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. *19 *So then let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding.
> 
> *20 *Do not, for the sake of food, *destroy the work of God*. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats. *21 *It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble. *22 *The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves. *23 *But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin."



On face value, the bolded texts seem to contradict these two Doctrines of Grace. What are your thoughts on these passages?


----------



## Ben Zartman (Oct 1, 2021)

Only if "destroy" means, "cause to become unsaved."
Which it cannot mean, if multiple other promises are true: "what shall separate us from the love of God?" "No one shall pluck them out of my hand."
So it must mean "work against," or "set back."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## pgwolv (Oct 1, 2021)

Ah, although I searched the Puritan Board before making the post, I see in "Similar Threads" that it has already been discussed in https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/definite-atonement-not-refuted-by-romans-14-15.6122/.

Apologies for not finding it first! It is a satisfactory answer to my question, especially https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/definite-atonement-not-refuted-by-romans-14-15.6122/post-80934


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 1, 2021)

Destroy can also mean, at least in a practical pastoral setting, to ruin people's souls and spirits. I know of several big name pastors who have left piles of broken souls in their wakes.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## chuckd (Oct 1, 2021)

pgwolv said:


> On face value, the bolded texts seem to contradict these two Doctrines of Grace. What are your thoughts on these passages?


"for whom Christ died" is another way of saying Christian, brother, God's child, etc.

"Would you do such a thing to a fellow Christian? Your brother in Christ? For whom Christ died?"

If the person does end up apostatizing because of your arrogance with respect to dietary liberty, then we can ultimately say they were not of us (1 John 2:19). But was being right worth it?

We're humans and we deal with the information and relationships we have day to day. Which are in a state of flux and may change since we're mutable by nature.


----------



## timfost (Oct 1, 2021)

Charles Hodge:

"There is another class of passages with which it is said that the Augustinian doctrine cannot be reconciled; such, namely, as speak of those perishing for whom Christ died. In reference to these passages it may be remarked, first, that there is a sense, as before stated, in which Christ did die for all men. His death had the effect of justifying the offer of salvation to every man; and of course was designed to have that effect. He therefore died sufficiently for all. In the second place, these passages are, in some cases at least, hypothetical. When Paul exhorts the Corinthians not to cause those to perish for whom Christ died, he merely exhorts them not to act selfishly towards those for whom Christ had exhibited the greatest compassion. The passage neither asserts nor implies that any actually perish for whom Christ died. None perish whom He came to save; multitudes perish to whom salvation is offered on the ground of his death."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## pgwolv (Oct 4, 2021)

timfost said:


> Charles Hodge:
> 
> "There is another class of passages with which it is said that the Augustinian doctrine cannot be reconciled; such, namely, as speak of those perishing for whom Christ died. In reference to these passages it may be remarked, first, that there is a sense, as before stated, in which Christ did die for all men. His death had the effect of justifying the offer of salvation to every man; and of course was designed to have that effect. He therefore died sufficiently for all. In the second place, these passages are, in some cases at least, hypothetical. When Paul exhorts the Corinthians not to cause those to perish for whom Christ died, he merely exhorts them not to act selfishly towards those for whom Christ had exhibited the greatest compassion. The passage neither asserts nor implies that any actually perish for whom Christ died. None perish whom He came to save; multitudes perish to whom salvation is offered on the ground of his death."


Thanks, it helps a lot to understand that some passages are hypothetical in nature to illustrate a point.


----------



## timfost (Oct 4, 2021)

pgwolv said:


> Thanks, it helps a lot to understand that some passages are hypothetical in nature to illustrate a point.


It may also help to consider the passage this way: We know that the church is the elect of God. We also know that members of the church leave the faith. Does it then follow that the elect of God can lose the faith and ultimately die in unbelief? This is where the good old visible/invisible distinction is very helpful. Can a member of the visible church-- one who is called elect of God, purchased by Christ's blood-- fall away and die in unbelief? Yes. Worse yet, can this be instigated by the abuse of someone else in the church? Yes. Paul's instruction is incredibly sobering and should serve as a reminder of how our actions--and especially the actions of church leaders-- can affect those in the body of Christ.


----------

