# Definite Atonement NOT refuted by Romans 14:15



## Poimen (Apr 21, 2005)

Romans 14:15 "Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died."

Someone used this verse in his conversation with me the other day to support his view that Christ can actually redeem someone and then lose them.

Anyways, how would you respond? My initial thoughts are that destroy does not mean body and soul, but body (temporally) because the context is about food. Besides it doesn't tell us (immediately) what is destroyed, right? So we have to assume it.

John Gill explains it this way:



> but this is to be understood of the destruction of such a man's peace and comfort, which is signified by grieving, stumbling, offending, and making him weak; and the words are a fresh reason, why they that are strong in the faith of Christian liberty, should nevertheless forbear the use of it, to preserve the peace of a weak brother; which is a matter of importance, and the rather to be attended to, since it is the peace of one that belongs to Christ, whom he has so loved as to die for, and therefore should be the object of the regard and affections of such as believe in Christ and love him.



Maybe I am missing something but this seems to be a bit of a stretch. The text says "Do not destroy _him_ (ekeinos) for whom Christ died."

Thoughts?

[Edited on 4-21-2005 by poimen]

[Edited on 4-21-2005 by poimen]

[Edited on 4-21-2005 by poimen]

[Edited on 8-9-2005 by poimen]


----------



## nobigdeal (Apr 21, 2005)

Here's Charles Hodge on a parallel text. I believe he says similar things on Romans 14.15. For a differing way of handling the question, consult John Murray's commentary on Romans

=================

And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? (First Corinthians 8.11)

For whom Christ died. There is great power and pathos in these words. Shall we, for the sake of eating one kind of meat rather than another, endanger the salvation of those for whom the eternal Son of God laid down his life? The infinite distance between Christ and us, and the almost infinite distance between his sufferings and the trifling self-denial required at our hands, give to the apostle's appeal a force the Christians heart cannot resist. The language of Paul in this verse seems to assume that those may perish for whom Christ died. It belongs, therefore, to the same category as those numerous passages which make the same assumption with regard to the elect. If the latter are consistent with the certainty of the salvation of the elect, then this passage is consistent with the certainty of the salvation of those for whom Christ specifically died. It was absolutely certain that none of Paul's companions in shipwreck was on that occasion to lose his life, because the salvation of the whole company had been predicted and promised; and yet the apostle said that if the sailors were allowed to take away the boats, those left on board could not be saved. This appeal secured the accomplishment of the promise. So God's telling the elect that if they apostatize they shall perish, prevents their apostasy. And in like manner, the Bible teaching that those for whom Christ died shall perish if they violate their conscience, prevents their transgressing, or brings them to repentance. God's purposes embrace the means as well as the end. If the means fail, the end will fail. He secures the end by securing the means. It is just as certain that those for whom Christ died shall be saved, as that the elect shall be saved. Yet in both cases the event is spoken of as conditional. There is not only a possibility, but an absolute certainty of their perishing if they fall away. But this is precisely what God has promised to prevent (pp. 148-149).

...There is, however, a sense in which it is scriptural to say that Christ died for all men. This is very different from saying that he died equally for all men, or that his death had no other reference to those who are saved than it had to those who are lost. To die for one is to die for his benefit. As Christ's death has benefited the whole world, prolonged the probation of men, secured for them innumerable blessings, provided a righteousness that is sufficient and suitable for all, it may be said that he died for all. And in reference to this obvious truth, the language of the apostle, should any prefer this interpretation, may be understood, "Why should we destroy one for whose benefit Christ lay down his life?"... (p. 149).

[Edited on 4-21-2005 by nobigdeal]


----------



## Poimen (Apr 21, 2005)

Sorry. There is no need for the type of attitude that I expressed in this (original) post. 

[Edited on 4-21-2005 by poimen]

[Edited on 4-21-2005 by poimen]


----------



## Poimen (Apr 21, 2005)

Thanks for the quote Mark.


----------



## Poimen (Aug 9, 2005)

I thought I would post my conclusions concerning this verse after some reflection and exegesis:

By way of Romans 14:15 I do not believe it overturns our understanding of a definite atonement. The text does not say that someone is destroyed to hell, or eternal punishment. Only God can do this (as John Gill points out by referring to Matthew 10:28) In connection with that, the focus is on the food and the body, not the soul. (No I am not a dualist, but we do recognize that there is a division of the body and the soul at the time of death, even for the elect).

Second, the word "˜destroyed´ is in the present imperative, not the aorist imperative. The choice of the present tense is significant since it indicates a temporary or atelic situation; the use of the aorist tense would indicate a permanent or telic situation. It is not eternal destruction that is in the mind of Paul, but unto the temporal situation. The weak brother is grieved because of the food and he stumbles because he is weak (vs. 15a). But that doesn´t imply a result of eternal destruction. It probably means a temporary loss of confidence or self-assurance of faith or salvation. In any case, Paul does not say anywhere that the person is actually destroyed but simply "do not destroy." Commanding something does not necessarily mean that the opposite is actually possible. 

Furthermore, the context tells us that it is impossible, for in Romans 14:4 Paul says "œIndeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand." (Thanks to Matt M. for this one! He pointed it out in an article of his that I read but I can't find it).

[Edited on 8-9-2005 by poimen]


----------



## Puritanhead (Aug 9, 2005)

I'm not even sure I would respond... I would find him a logic textbook or an article on the English language and syntax, or some article on _reading comprehension._ That's the most ridiculous thing I have every heard of... well not really, but for the moment.
:bigsmile:

His error is not reading in context; and he obviously hyper-atomizes a clause therein to wring out his erroneous presupposition...


----------



## Augusta (Aug 9, 2005)

Daniel there is a similar verse in 1 Cor. 8:10-12 that threw me at first. I think a better word in possibly both passages in todays terms would be "devastate." They are the weaker brother and may be set back to square one by anothers actions but not destroyed in the final sense. They could be devastated and have to work their way through the situation. Here is the passage in 1Corinthians 8:

10 For if anyone with a weak conscience sees you who have this knowledge eating in an idol's temple, won't he be emboldened to eat what has been sacrificed to idols? 
11 So this weak brother, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. 
12 When you sin against your brothers in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ.


----------



## Poimen (Aug 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> I'm not even sure I would respond... I would find him a logic textbook or an article on the English language and syntax, or some article on _reading comprehension._ That's the most ridiculous thing I have every heard of... well not really, but for the moment.
> :bigsmile:
> 
> His error is not reading in context; and he obviously hyper-atomizes a clause therein to wring out his erroneous presupposition...



Martin Luther concurs:



> And even common grammarians and every little school-boy in the street knows, that by verbs of the imperative mood, nothing else is signified than that which ought to be done, and that, what is done or can be done, is expressed by verbs of the indicative mood... you (ed. errant theologians) have caught hold of one imperative sense, as though what was commanded were immediately and necessarily done, or possible to be done.



"The Bondage of the Will"


----------

