PDA

View Full Version : The doctrine of Limited Atonement



poochie
Aug 13th 2008, 02:37 AM
I have next in my TO DO LIST to write an rebut on the Calvinism Doctrine of Limited Atonement.

I have my Ericksion Chr Theology textbook and my other works. Anyone got any quality websites you can refer me too? For this one I will be using only the King James version.

Thanks..

Firefighter
Aug 13th 2008, 02:56 AM
Here is a dear friend of mine's blog. He is a textual critic at Cambridge University. It should certainly get your wheels spinning...

http://treasuresoldandnewbiblicaltexts.blogspot.com/search/label/Eternal%20Security

scourge39
Aug 13th 2008, 04:18 AM
As someone who holds fervently to Limited Atonement, it should be an interesting read, although I doubt you'll dissuade me. Just make sure that you read and wrestle with this:

http://www.all-of-grace.org/pub/others/deathofdeath.html

poochie
Aug 13th 2008, 11:34 AM
MY ISP blocks all blogs. Can you give me a normal website? My ISP blocks all non domain name type sites as well, so your next site needs to be a domain and not some earthlink.net/poochie/bible/index.htm.


Here is a dear friend of mine's blog. He is a textual critic at Cambridge University. It should certainly get your wheels spinning...

http://treasuresoldandnewbiblicaltexts.blogspot.com/search/label/Eternal%20Security

Redeemed by Grace
Aug 13th 2008, 11:43 AM
Since you are asking for opinion, here’s mine…

I see you approaching this all wrong, for your mind is set to disprove a position, not on looking to see what scripture says… Scripture is to frame ones understandings, not our understandings searching for scripture to support it.

It would be my thought to read God’s word with as little predisposition as you can, asking God to give you wisdom, reading the word and let it speak with what is written.

Take notes, highlight what strikes you, and then read it again… study it’s words, its history, its context…

Then you should have a better chance to see what the word is saying, not what you want it to say… for the way the word is written, anyone can bend the word to fit any and all doctrines, but scripture only has one meaning, and it should be every Christian’s life-long goal to search the scriptures, to know the word, to seek a better walk through knowing the Word and to live it.

Examine the scriptures, study it to show thy self faithful, and forsake studying to find support for your doctrines, but let scripture form your doctrines with joy.

My :2cents:, for what it is worth... :saint:


For His glory...

John146
Aug 13th 2008, 07:03 PM
I have next in my TO DO LIST to write an rebut on the Calvinism Doctrine of Limited Atonement.

I have my Ericksion Chr Theology textbook and my other works. Anyone got any quality websites you can refer me too? For this one I will be using only the King James version.

Thanks..While I am very firmly against that doctrine, I would have to agree with what RbG said. You should study this for yourself while asking the Lord for wisdom and not bring any biases into it and then see what you discover. If you do read that textbook or look at a website make sure you search the scriptures for yourself, like the Bereans did, to see if what they're saying is so (Acts 17:10-11).

Bryan43
Aug 13th 2008, 07:14 PM
While I am very firmly against that doctrine, I would have to agree with what RbG said. You should study this for yourself while asking the Lord for wisdom and not bring any biases into it and then see what you discover. If you do read that textbook or look at a website make sure you search the scriptures for yourself, like the Bereans did, to see if what they're saying is so (Acts 17:10-11).


Agree here. Do what paul told timothy. test all doctrines to see if they are from God or man.

One can do a basic study of the word, and see limited atonement is faulty at best. Just look up predestination. and find out where predestination comes from. this should help.

Diolectic
Aug 13th 2008, 08:35 PM
Limited Atonement
Limited Atonement does not claim that the power of the atonement is limited, in that any sin is so great that it can not be covered by Christ's sacrifice; however it does claim that it does not extend to all, only to those who God chooses to elect. Limited Atonement is an extension of the doctrine of Unconditional election, but it has more of an emphasis on the atonement of the elect or is mainly limited with the doctrine of the nature of the atonement, what it does and how it is applied. The false doctrine of this theory states that the atonement of Christ literally pays the penalty of the sins that men are liable for, in other words Christ receives the wrath of God for specific sins and that cancels the judgment they had built up. This is because it would be unjust for God to take the place in judgment for those specific sins and continues to condemn them for those sins; therefore, God must necessarily save all the specific people, whose specific sins were specifically forgiven.



Limited Atonement is only effectual after one believes which makes the atonement of Christ a potential work instead of an active work, exclusive and not inclusive, Ones who hold to this doctrine deny the power of Christ' making peace between God and all mankind, while they make atonement to be the salvation of only those who are elected.

Atonement is the translated word kaw-far' from Hebrew to English which means “to cover” of the Jewish Fast of Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement). It incorporates the words reconciliation, propitiation (satisfaction) and forgiveness. The work of Christ on His cross makes away for salvation while the salvation it's self comes from the relationship one has with Him and not just in what he did on the cross.

This doctrine of Limited Atonement misinterprets the word atonement to be the salvation of man, when, in actuality, the true meaning is that it is only the taking away of sin, it is the forgiveness if sin, thus making peace between God and man (Col 1:20). Christ's work makes redemption possible for all but guaranteed for only those who have a relationship with Christ.
They claim that the atonement saves man instead of the relationship with Christ. The actual salvation is eternal life (John 17:3).

RogerW
Aug 13th 2008, 09:27 PM
Limited Atonement


Limited Atonement does not claim that the power of the atonement is limited, in that any sin is so great that it can not be covered by Christ's sacrifice; however it does claim that it does not extend to all, only to those who God chooses to elect. Limited Atonement is an extension of the doctrine of Unconditional election, but it has more of an emphasis on the atonement of the elect or is mainly limited with the doctrine of the nature of the atonement, what it does and how it is applied. The false doctrine of this theory states that the atonement of Christ literally pays the penalty of the sins that men are liable for, in other words Christ receives the wrath of God for specific sins and that cancels the judgment they had built up. This is because it would be unjust for God to take the place in judgment for those specific sins and continues to condemn them for those sins; therefore, God must necessarily save all the specific people, whose specific sins were specifically forgiven.

Limited Atonement is only effectual after one believes which makes the atonement of Christ a potential work instead of an active work, exclusive and not inclusive, Ones who hold to this doctrine deny the power of Christ' making peace between God and all mankind, while they make atonement to be the salvation of only those who are elected.

Atonement is the translated word kaw-far' from Hebrew to English which means “to cover” of the Jewish Fast of Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement). It incorporates the words reconciliation, propitiation (satisfaction) and forgiveness. The work of Christ on His cross makes away for salvation while the salvation it's self comes from the relationship one has with Him and not just in what he did on the cross.

This doctrine of Limited Atonement misinterprets the word atonement to be the salvation of man, when, in actuality, the true meaning is that it is only the taking away of sin, it is the forgiveness if sin, thus making peace between God and man (Col 1:20). Christ's work makes redemption possible for all but guaranteed for only those who have a relationship with Christ.
They claim that the atonement saves man instead of the relationship with Christ. The actual salvation is eternal life (John 17:3).

Since a statement attempting to refute limited atonement has been put forward, it seems only fair to put forward a statement refuting limitless atonement.

Arminians state that God is not sovereign in salvation; man is! God's will does not rule in the redemption of mankind; man's does! God's grace does not account for salvation; man's faith does! Arminian limitless atonement is: "I choose God (Christ), and therefore He chooses me!"

How pervasive that poison is in the churches today! O, that the smell of the beautiful, biblical TULIP would prevail as it did in the time of Dordt: "God chose me to believe, sovereignly, unconditionally, entirely of grace!"

This, however, was just the beginning of the Arminian errors:

That, agreeably thereunto, Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world, died for all men and for every man, so that he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross, redemption and the forgiveness of sins; yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins except the believer, according to the word of the gospel of John 3:16, "God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." And in the First Epistle of John 2:2: "And he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."

In this statement the Arminians boldly set forth universal atonement: Christ has died for all men, head for head. His death on the cross covered the sins of all people that ever live. His sacrifice obtained forgiveness and freedom for each and every person in all of time and history. Christ's death, then, is not just for the elect of God; it is not limited to that select people determined by God. It is for all men without exception.

Yet at the same time the Arminians had to reckon with the fact that all men do not enjoy this salvation in the death of Christ. Some men perish in their unbelief and never receive the benefits Christ obtained for them. Which means that Christ has died in vain for some; His death is not sufficient to secure some people's salvation. What is this but a denial of the efficacy and all-sufficiency of Christ's atonement?!

This is not the sweet fragrance of the gospel, as they claimed; this is the stench of error! Besides, in this article the Arminians again grounded salvation in the faith of the sinner, not the sovereign work of God in Christ at the cross. At best Christ's death only makes salvation possible for the sinner. The determining factor in salvation is not what Christ did in dying but what the sinner does in believing. Christ has died in vain unless the sinner believes! "Christ died only for those elect given Him by the Father, sufficiently, efficaciously, with everlasting security of their salvation!"

Bryan43
Aug 13th 2008, 10:18 PM
"Christ died only for those elect given Him by the Father, sufficiently, efficaciously, with everlasting security of their salvation!"


Roger, is this your belief. or is this what you are saying the armenians believed?

poochie
Aug 13th 2008, 10:28 PM
I already have read and studied this position out as I used to be a 5 point Calvinist. But after I took 2 courses in Systematic Theology at a graduate school my mind was changed and I realized that Limited Atonement is a false doctrine.


Since you are asking for opinion, here’s mine…

I see you approaching this all wrong, for your mind is set to disprove a position, not on looking to see what scripture says… Scripture is to frame ones understandings, not our understandings searching for scripture to support it.

It would be my thought to read God’s word with as little predisposition as you can, asking God to give you wisdom, reading the word and let it speak with what is written.

Take notes, highlight what strikes you, and then read it again… study it’s words, its history, its context…

Then you should have a better chance to see what the word is saying, not what you want it to say… for the way the word is written, anyone can bend the word to fit any and all doctrines, but scripture only has one meaning, and it should be every Christian’s life-long goal to search the scriptures, to know the word, to seek a better walk through knowing the Word and to live it.

Examine the scriptures, study it to show thy self faithful, and forsake studying to find support for your doctrines, but let scripture form your doctrines with joy.

My :2cents:, for what it is worth... :saint:


For His glory...

poochie
Aug 13th 2008, 10:31 PM
Diolectic.

How do you get your own picture to show? I want my own picture.





Limited Atonement

Limited Atonement does not claim that the power of the atonement is limited, in that any sin is so great that it can not be covered by Christ's sacrifice; however it does claim that it does not extend to all, only to those who God chooses to elect. Limited Atonement is an extension of the doctrine of Unconditional election, but it has more of an emphasis on the atonement of the elect or is mainly limited with the doctrine of the nature of the atonement, what it does and how it is applied. The false doctrine of this theory states that the atonement of Christ literally pays the penalty of the sins that men are liable for, in other words Christ receives the wrath of God for specific sins and that cancels the judgment they had built up. This is because it would be unjust for God to take the place in judgment for those specific sins and continues to condemn them for those sins; therefore, God must necessarily save all the specific people, whose specific sins were specifically forgiven.
Limited Atonement is only effectual after one believes which makes the atonement of Christ a potential work instead of an active work, exclusive and not inclusive, Ones who hold to this doctrine deny the power of Christ' making peace between God and all mankind, while they make atonement to be the salvation of only those who are elected.

Atonement is the translated word kaw-far' from Hebrew to English which means “to cover” of the Jewish Fast of Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement). It incorporates the words reconciliation, propitiation (satisfaction) and forgiveness. The work of Christ on His cross makes away for salvation while the salvation it's self comes from the relationship one has with Him and not just in what he did on the cross.

This doctrine of Limited Atonement misinterprets the word atonement to be the salvation of man, when, in actuality, the true meaning is that it is only the taking away of sin, it is the forgiveness if sin, thus making peace between God and man (Col 1:20). Christ's work makes redemption possible for all but guaranteed for only those who have a relationship with Christ.
They claim that the atonement saves man instead of the relationship with Christ. The actual salvation is eternal life (John 17:3).

Friend of I AM
Aug 13th 2008, 10:46 PM
I have next in my TO DO LIST to write an rebut on the Calvinism Doctrine of Limited Atonement.

I have my Ericksion Chr Theology textbook and my other works. Anyone got any quality websites you can refer me too? For this one I will be using only the King James version.

Thanks..

You know what's interesting is you'll find that most people who grew up calvanists/methodist/universalists/armeniasts/etc..generally don't subscribe to these various theories and man made doctrines. Most that I've met just subscribe to the simple doctrine of "Christ died for mankind's sins and if you have faith in him you will live."

I think all of these man-made doctrines come into play/discussion when people go into study groups after church and what not. A sound pastor in any church would never try to relay the message of the Gospel by trying to preach such a convoluted doctrine. It's hard enough sometimes to stay focused during sermons with a lot of the rhetoric spewed out by some nowadays. People would fall to sleep trying to listen to all of this technical nonsense, particularly all of the stuff nowadays in study groups that goes on ad-infinitum about Greek, Hebrew text translations, etc.

RogerW
Aug 13th 2008, 10:46 PM
Roger, is this your belief. or is this what you are saying the armenians believed?

Hi Bryan,

I was showing what Arminians believe. Since the doctrine of limited atonement is shown throughout Scripture, I accept what Scripture affirms.

Many Blessings,
RW

Brother Mark
Aug 13th 2008, 10:47 PM
Since you are asking for opinion, here’s mine…

I see you approaching this all wrong, for your mind is set to disprove a position, not on looking to see what scripture says… Scripture is to frame ones understandings, not our understandings searching for scripture to support it.

It would be my thought to read God’s word with as little predisposition as you can, asking God to give you wisdom, reading the word and let it speak with what is written.

Take notes, highlight what strikes you, and then read it again… study it’s words, its history, its context…

Then you should have a better chance to see what the word is saying, not what you want it to say… for the way the word is written, anyone can bend the word to fit any and all doctrines, but scripture only has one meaning, and it should be every Christian’s life-long goal to search the scriptures, to know the word, to seek a better walk through knowing the Word and to live it.

Examine the scriptures, study it to show thy self faithful, and forsake studying to find support for your doctrines, but let scripture form your doctrines with joy.

My :2cents:, for what it is worth... :saint:


For His glory...

Well said.... It bears repeating... Let us allow the word to shape our beliefs instead of allowing our beliefs to shape the word.

RogerW
Aug 13th 2008, 10:53 PM
I already have read and studied this position out as I used to be a 5 point Calvinist. But after I took 2 courses in Systematic Theology at a graduate school my mind was changed and I realized that Limited Atonement is a false doctrine.

If it is false as you adamantly proclaim it to be, and you are absolutely certain it is false why did you ask for help to rebut limited atonement? Can not one who is so certain in their doctrine, one who was no less a 5 point Calvinist themself show us how and why you have come to understand that limited atonement is unbiblical?

RW

Bryan43
Aug 13th 2008, 10:58 PM
Hi Bryan,

I was showing what Arminians believe. Since the doctrine of limited atonement is shown throughout Scripture, I accept what Scripture affirms.

Many Blessings,
RW

how can you say the doctrine of limited atonement is all throughout scripture?

Christ died for all. Not just some. or am I missing your point?

from what I have been told. the calvanist view is if God chose you. will believe no matter what. if he did not chose you. you will not believe. does this not remove free will??

Diolectic
Aug 13th 2008, 11:03 PM
Since a statement attempting to refute limited atonement has been put forward, it seems only fair to put forward a statement refuting limitless atonement.

Armenians state that God is not sovereign in salvation;
I'm not either Armenian or Calv.

God is sovereign in salvation.

God knows them that will acknowledge & accept the truth of the Gospel when presented.
God knows that they will repent and put their faith in/on Him when they hear the truth of the Gospel.
It is by God's sovereignty to choose them to receive eternal life.

God will not give eternal life to them who reject Him.
He will not give eternal life to the disobedient & rebellious of the command for all men everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30)



God's will does not rule in the redemption of mankind; man's does!God wills for all mankind to be saved.
Not all mankind wants to be saved when they hear the truth.

Fact is, both God and man's will plays part in salvation.


God's grace does not account for salvation; man's faith does!
By Grace through faith.
Faith can not be a "gift" which must be given before one is saved. That would make God directly responsible for the faithlessness if the world.

That would give man excuse on the Day of Judgment.
Example:
God, "Why did you not have Faith?"
Sinner, "Because, You did not give me faith."


Armenian limitless atonement is: "I choose God (Christ), and therefore He chooses me!"
Praise God for limitless atonement!!!

The correct way to state this is as follows:
God knew that I would be obedient of His command for all men everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30), therefore He chose me.


How pervasive that poison is in the churches today! O, which the smell of the beautiful, biblical TULIP would prevail as it did in the time of Dordt: "God chose me to believe, sovereignty, unconditionally, entirely of grace!"
O, which the stench of the putrid, un-biblical TULIP would be disguarded.
"God chose me to dis-believe, ultimate cause of everything, unconditionally, entirely of arbitrary partiality"


This, however, was just the beginning of the Armenian errors:

That, agreeably thereunto, Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world, died for all men and for every man, so that he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross, redemption and the forgiveness of sins; yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins except the believer, according to the word of the gospel of John 3:16, "God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." And in the First Epistle of John 2:2: "And he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."

In this statement the Armenians boldly set forth universal atonement: Christ has died for all men, head for head. His death on the cross covered the sins of all people that ever live. His sacrifice obtained forgiveness and freedom for each and every person in all of time and history.
Example:
A man on death row in prison received a pardon from the mayor.
His sentence of death was stayed.

This man actually rejected the mayor's pardon and took the death sentence.
Even though his penalty was taken away, he still died.

So it is with the disobedient and rebellious.
They refuse Gods gracious gift and take damnation onto themselves.


Christ's death, then, is not just for the elect of God; it is not limited to that select people determined by God. It is for all men without exception.
Amen, praise Him for His infinite Grace in contrast to Calvin's god of finite grace.
Praise Him for His unlimited mercy in contrast to Calvin's god of limited mercy.

Election and predestination is like this:
I know my wife so well that I make reservations to "Olive Garden" before I give her a choice to choose all the restaurants in the state.

She has all the chances to choose any restaurant she wills.
However, She chooses "Olive Garden" that was already pre-chosen by me with reservations.

Another example:
I invite all the people in my town to "Olive Garden", but I only make reservations for those who I know that will come.
While every one has an invitation and has equal chance to be with me and all have a choice to come or not, only those who I know will choose to come are reserved to sit at my table.


Yet at the same time the Armenians had to reckon with the fact that all men do not enjoy this salvation in the death of Christ. Some men perish in their unbelief and never receive the benefits Christ obtained for them. Which means that Christ has died in vain for some; His death is not sufficient to secure some people's salvation. What is this but a denial of the efficacy and all-sufficiency of Christ's atonement?!
Christ’s death was sufficient to secure all mankind’s salvation; the ones who do not receive eternal life will nit have it.
Hey are to blame for their damnation.
Calvin's theology has God to blame for the damnation of those He arbitrarily does not elect.


This is not the sweet fragrance of the gospel, as they claimed; this is the stench of error!Vice verse


Besides, in this article the Armenians again grounded salvation in the faith of the sinner, not the sovereign work of God in Christ at the cross
Define sovereign work of God in Christ at the cross.

Salvation is in fact grounded in faith.
It is also grounded in the obedience of the sinner to the Gospel.


At best Christ's death only makes salvation possible for the sinner.
Amen, praise Him that salvation is possible for all sinners, not just for a chosen few who were lucky enough to win the lotto of the elect.


The determining factor in salvation is not what Christ did in dying but what the sinner does in believing. Christ has died in vain unless the sinner believes!Christ did not die in vain only because some refuse to acknowledge His death.
Christ death accomplished what it was meant for; to atone for all those who are obedient of applying His blood to them selves.
Just as Israel were to be obedient and apply the blood to their door posts.


"Christ died only for those elect given Him by the Father, sufficiently, efficaciously, with everlasting security of their salvation!"Amen!!!


I was showing what Armenians believe. Since the doctrine of limited atonement is shown throughout Scripture, I accept what Scripture affirms.Sounds as if you were prooving your mis-understanding of the whole concept of salvation.

Brother Mark
Aug 13th 2008, 11:04 PM
In my opinion, limited atonement is the least defensible point of the 5 points of Calvinism. .

1 John 2:1-3

2 My little children, I am writing these things to you that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; 2 and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.
NASB

Now, in context, i.e. the book of 1 John, the world is speaking of those that hate God.

Or we could look here...

2 Peter 2:1

2 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.
NASB

Here we see false prophets and false teachers were bought by the master.

Matt 13:44

44 "The kingdom of heaven is like a treasure hidden in the field, which a man found and hid; and from joy over it he goes and sells all that he has, and buys that field.
NASB

Some teach the passage above to be that it is us that sells all we have for the joy of the kingdom. To which I ask "What did you sell in order that you could buy salvation"? Did any of us buy salvation? On the contrary! From the parable above we know the man is Jesus and the field is the world. Jesus sold all he had and bought the field, for the sake of the treasure.

All men are bought with a price. Yet, not all men are saved.

9Marksfan
Aug 13th 2008, 11:56 PM
I'm not either Armenian or Calv.

Having read your responses, I'd say you were 100% Arminian. Why do you say you aren't?

RogerW
Aug 14th 2008, 12:00 AM
In my opinion, limited atonement is the least defensible point of the 5 points of Calvinism. .

1 John 2:1-3

2 My little children, I am writing these things to you that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; 2 and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.
NASB

Now, in context, i.e. the book of 1 John, the world is speaking of those that hate God.

Or we could look here...

2 Peter 2:1

2 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.
NASB

Here we see false prophets and false teachers were bought by the master.

Matt 13:44

44 "The kingdom of heaven is like a treasure hidden in the field, which a man found and hid; and from joy over it he goes and sells all that he has, and buys that field.
NASB

Some teach the passage above to be that it is us that sells all we have for the joy of the kingdom. To which I ask "What did you sell in order that you could buy salvation"? Did any of us buy salvation? On the contrary! From the parable above we know the man is Jesus and the field is the world. Jesus sold all he had and bought the field, for the sake of the treasure.

All men are bought with a price. Yet, not all men are saved.

This argument sounds a bit like the one we are having in God's Desires...1Ti 2:1-6. There you argue that Christ paid the sin debt for the "whole world" without distinction. To which I gave a reply that you basically ignored. I'll try it again, but before I copy and paste it here also, do you realize with your last statement above that you are saying Christ bought unregenerate men with His blood, but His sacrifice could not save them? You'll argue it was not that His blood could not save them, but rather that they chose to remain in unbelief...sounds very much like the choice that every single unsaved man makes prior to regeneration.


Context is important. Distinction is also important with reference to the world. If Christ’s love is without distinction for every human (whole world), why don’t we read that Jesus loved the “whole world”, and He loved them unto the end? Christ’s love for the whole world certainly is not the same saving love He shows to “His own which were in the world”.

Joh 13:1 Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end.

If God loved the “whole world” without distinction, why can’t the “world” receive the Spirit of truth, enabling them to know Him? Yet there are some that know Him, and the Spirit of truth dwells in them, not the “whole world”.

Joh 14:17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

If the Lord loves the “whole world” without distinction, why does He not manifest Himself unto the world?

Joh 14:22 Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?

Who are these who are not of the world, but chosen out of the world, and therefore hated by the world? Certainly it is not the “whole world” because clearly the “world” loves its own.

Joh 15:19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.

If Jesus loves the “whole world” without distinction, why are only some given and kept by Him from the Father?

Joh 17:6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.

If Jesus loves the “whole world” without distinction, why does He pray only for those given Him, and says “they are Thine”?

Joh 17:9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.

1Jo 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

The way 1Jo 2:2 should be understood is that Christ's atonement not only does away with our (believers, His own who are throughout the whole world) sins, but also will remove sins from the whole world. Not remove sins from every single human, but remove sins altogether. For "whole" creation groans awaiting deliverance from the bondage of sin it has been subjected to.

Ro 8:20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
Ro 8:21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
Ro 8:22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

In the fullness of time all sins will be done away. For those who are saved they are done away in Christ, but for those who die in unbelief they, along with their sins will be cast into the lake of fire.

[quote=RogerW;1745784]Greetings Mark,

You have misunderstood what I have stated. All of creation was brought into bondage when sin entered the world. Scripture tells us that the whole creation (kosmos, in a very wide sense; as order and structure we find in the world) groans and travails in pain awaiting the manifestation of the sons of God. God's creation (Kosmos) was a glorious creation, without spot or blemish, but since sin entered the world God's creation too, like man is cursed (Gn 3:17-19), and longs to return to the state of perfection found prior to sin.

.... will remove sins from the whole world. Not remove sins from every single human, but remove sins altogether. For the "whole" creation groans awaiting deliverance from the bondage of sin it has been subjected to. (thorns and thistles, unpredictable weather, weeds, death etc)

Ro 8:20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
Ro 8:21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
Ro 8:22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

In the fullness of time all sins will be done away. For those who are saved they are done away in Christ, but for those who die in unbelief they, along with their sins will be cast into the lake of fire. The created kosmos does not die in unbelief, so obviously I am not speaking of creation (kosmos) itself sinning.

When sin is finally put away forever, God will re-create the world as it was prior to sin. The kosmos, or orderly creation will no longer grow thorns and thistles, or produce killer storms, and disease, poisonous plants, and animals, but will be perfect once more. Hence all sin will be done away because Christ' atonement satified the wrath of God thereby assuring that sin will be no more. The sins of believers are done away in Christ, but the sins of all who die in unbelief, their sins will be done away in the lake of fire.

I hope this helps to clarify this for you.

Many Blessings,
RW

RogerW
Aug 14th 2008, 12:06 AM
how can you say the doctrine of limited atonement is all throughout scripture?

Christ died for all. Not just some. or am I missing your point?

from what I have been told. the calvanist view is if God chose you. will believe no matter what. if he did not chose you. you will not believe. does this not remove free will??

The doctrine of Limited Atonement (or Particular Redemption) is probably the most controversial of the doctrines of grace and most difficult to accept by many believers. Limited Atonement states that Christ's redeeming work was intended to save the elect only, and actually secured salvation for them. His death was the substitutionary endurance of the penalty of sin in the place of certain specified sinners. In addition to putting away the sins of His people, Christ's redemption secured everything necessary for their salvation; including faith which unites them to Him. The gift of faith is infallibly applied by the Spirit to all for whom Christ died, therefore guaranteeing their salvation.

Scriptural Support:
Exodus 4:21, 14:4, 8, 17; Deuteronomy 2:30, 9:4-7, 29:4; Joshua 11:19; 1 Samuel 2:25, 3:14; 2 Samuel 17:14; Psalm 105:25; Proverbs 15:8, 26, 28:9; Isaiah 53:11; Jeremiah 24:7; Matthew 1:21, 11:25-27, 13:10-15, 44-46, 15:13, 20:28, 22:14, 24:22; Luke 8:15, 13:23, 19:42; John 5:21, 6:37, 44, 65, 8:42-47, 10:11, 14, 26-28, 11:49-53, 12:37-41, 13:1, 18, 15:16, 17:2, 6, 9, 18:9, 37; Acts 2:39, 13:48, 18:27, 19:9; Romans 9:10-26, 11:5-10; 1 Corinthians 1:18-31, 2:14; 2 Corinthians 2:14-16, 4:3; Galatians 1:3; Ephesians 2:1-10; Colossians 2:13; 2 Thessalonians 2:9-14; 2 Timothy 2:20, 25; Titus 2:14; Hebrews 1:3, 14, 2:9, 16 (cp. Galatians 3:29, 4:28-31), 9:28; 1 Peter 2:8; 2 Peter 2:7; 1 John 4:6; Jude 1, 14; Revelation 13:8, 17:8, 15-18, 21:27.

This is the biblical view, not the view of John Calvin, although Calvin agreed with the biblical view as well.

Many Blessings,
RW

9Marksfan
Aug 14th 2008, 12:08 AM
In my opinion, limited atonement is the least defensible point of the 5 points of Calvinism. .

1 John 2:1-3

2 My little children, I am writing these things to you that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; 2 and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.
NASB

Now, in context, i.e. the book of 1 John, the world is speaking of those that hate God.

No - world can often mean (as it does in John 3:16 etc - the author's uses of world in other writings is also relevant to interpretation!) Gentiles as well as Jews.


Or we could look here...

2 Peter 2:1

2 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying "the Master who bought them", bringing swift destruction upon themselves.
NASB

Here we see false prophets and false teachers were bought by the master.

Couldn't Peter be being sarcastic here? Possibly quoting the false prophets loud claims that they had been bought by Christ? If you put quotes around the phrase (as I have), can you see how it could be sarcastic?


Matt 13:44

44 "The kingdom of heaven is like a treasure hidden in the field, which a man found and hid; and from joy over it he goes and sells all that he has, and buys that field.
NASB

Some teach the passage above to be that it is us that sells all we have for the joy of the kingdom. To which I ask "What did you sell in order that you could buy salvation"? Did any of us buy salvation? On the contrary!

Yet Isaiah 55 tells us to buy - WITHOUT price! It's a turn of phrase - the meaning is clear - we need to "sell up" (metaphorically) ALL for the joy of Christ (the treasure) and His kingdom (the field)!


From the parable above we know the man is Jesus

How so?


and the field is the world.

So how come the world (humanity, right?) isn't as valuable as the pearl?


Jesus sold all he had and bought the field, for the sake of the treasure.

Who is the treasure? The world or believers? If it's believers, then who are of value to Him?


All men are bought with a price. Yet, not all men are saved.

No - if all men are bought, all men are redeemed! That interpretation makes a nonsense of "you were bought at a price" in 1 Cor 6:20 - immediately before, Paul says "you are not your own" - so are unbelievers in the power of the devil and destined for hell "God's own people"?

Brother Mark
Aug 14th 2008, 12:10 AM
This argument sounds a bit like the one we are having in God's Desires...1Ti 2:1-6. There you argue that Christ paid the sin debt for the "whole world" without distinction. To which I gave a reply that you basically ignored. I'll try it again, but before I copy and paste it here also, do you realize with your last statement above that you are saying Christ bought unregenerate men with His blood, but His sacrifice could not save them? You'll argue it was not that His blood could not save them, but rather that they chose to remain in unbelief...sounds very much like the choice that every single unsaved man makes prior to regeneration.

Yes it is similar and yes I ignored the post. It didn't fit within what the verses stated and didn't seem to require a rebuttal. It kind of made my point for me that many choose to read something different than what the scriptures say. For instance, world in 1 John is used to refer to those that hate God in addition to the lusts and attitudes that are evil and along with creation. IMO, the clearest reading of 1 john is that he died for the sins of all mankind and paid for their sins.

In the KJV it says this...

1 John 2:2

2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
KJV

1 John 2:2
2 and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.
NASB

He paid for the sins of the world. Not just creation but also those that sinned i.e. people.

We see this too in Peter where even false prophets and false teachers are bought by the master.


Context is important. Distinction is also important with reference to the world. If Christ’s love is without distinction for every human (whole world), why don’t we read that Jesus loved the “whole world”, and He loved them unto the end? Christ’s love for the whole world certainly is not the same saving love He shows to “His own which were in the world”.

You guys make a distinction in the love of God but scripture does not. The love is the same but they are cut off from God's love when they are cut off from Him.

But back to limited atonement, the subject of this thread....

Matt 13 also teaches that Jesus paid for the whole world and bought it.

Matt 13:44

44 "The kingdom of heaven is like a treasure hidden in the field, which a man found and hid; and from joy over it he goes and sells all that he has, and buys that field.
NASB

The man is Jesus and he bought the entire world for the sake of the treasure. I didn't buy him. He bought me.

Bryan43
Aug 14th 2008, 12:16 AM
The doctrine of Limited Atonement (or Particular Redemption) is probably the most controversial of the doctrines of grace and most difficult to accept by many believers. Limited Atonement states that Christ's redeeming work was intended to save the elect only, and actually secured salvation for them.

This is contrary to the fact that jesus as john said takes away the sin of the world. And the fact that jesus made the propitiary sacrifice not only for us. but the whole world. This would also reject Christ, who said ALL sin will be forgiven men but one. Blasphemy of the holy spirit.

and herin lies the problem. At the great whit throne. no one is judged for sin. they stand on their works. their sin is forgiven. except one. they called the holy spirit a liar. and rejected Gods grace provision he made for them. thus their guilt is not sin. but the one sin


for His death was the substitutionary endurance of the penalty of sin in the place of certain specified sinners.

this too states he only died for some. No scriptural.


In addition to putting away the sins of His people, Christ's redemption secured everything necessary for their salvation;

He did this for everyone. not just the chosen ones.


including faith which unites them to Him.

man must chose of his own free will to have faith in Christ's promise. This states God forced it on them. and kept it from others. this again is not scriptural. but makes men robots.



The gift of faith is infallibly applied by the Spirit to all for whom Christ died, therefore guaranteeing their salvation.



faith is not a gift. Salvation and eternal life is a gift. it is our free will faith that procures this gift.



This is the biblical view, not the view of John Calvin, although Calvin agreed with the biblical view as well.


sorry I must respectfully still disagree.

Brother Mark
Aug 14th 2008, 12:25 AM
No - world can often mean (as it does in John 3:16 etc - the author's uses of world in other writings is also relevant to interpretation!) Gentiles as well as Jews.

Show me one passage in 1 John where that distinction is made that way. Not once does the author use it that way. Even if he did, you would still have to explain then, under your doctrine, why some Gentiles go to hell. But then, you will just define world as "elected gentiles"

IMO, it's using doctrine to shape scripture instead of scripture to shape doctrine. In all occurrences of the Greek word Kosmos in 1 John it refers to the attitude of the world (i.e. lust of the flesh, etc.), those that hate God, and creation.


Couldn't Peter be being sarcastic here? Possibly quoting the false prophets loud claims that they had been bought by Christ? If you put quotes around the phrase (as I have), can you see how it could be sarcastic?

No. Because Peter understood that Jesus paid for everyone.


Yet Isaiah 55 tells us to buy - WITHOUT price! It's a turn of phrase - the meaning is clear - we need to "sell up" (metaphorically) ALL for the joy of Christ (the treasure) and His kingdom (the field)!

So you are going to preach that verse in Matt 15 to say that we buy salvation? We buy the kingdom?

Let's look at context...

Matt 13:36-44

36 Then He left the multitudes, and went into the house. And His disciples came to Him, saying, "Explain to us the parable of the tares of the field." 37 And He answered and said, "The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man, 38 and the field is the world; and as for the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil one; 39 and the enemy who sowed them is the devil, and the harvest is the end of the age; and the reapers are angels. 40 "Therefore just as the tares are gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be at the end of the age. 41 "The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness, 42 and will cast them into the furnace of fire; in that place there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 43 "Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.

44 "The kingdom of heaven is like a treasure hidden in the field, which a man found and hid; and from joy over it he goes and sells all that he has, and buys that field.
NASB

Jesus just explained to them that the Son of Man was the man, the field was the world and the wheat (i.e. treasure) was the elect. Then he gives the next parable, and said he bought it all.

He buys not us. We can't buy the kingdom. Never could.


How so?

Read the explanation of the parable of the wheat and tares where Jesus gives the key to the next parable. He explains who the world is, who the man is that sows, etc.


So how come the world (humanity, right?) isn't as valuable as the pearl?

Who says they aren't?

Some teach that the pearl is the Gentile and the Treasure is the Jew. One thing is for sure, only God can be a merchant. We can't sell everything and then buy God. As the scripture in Isaiah says, come without money and buy, for it has no cost.

Isa 55:1

55 "Ho! Every one who thirsts, come to the waters;
And you who have no money come, buy and eat.
Come, buy wine and milk
Without money and without cost.
NASB

God can't be bought.


Who is the treasure? The world or believers? If it's believers, then who are of value to Him?

He bought the world. And he treasures us. I never said otherwise. We can discuss the other issues in another thread. Let's keep it on limited atonement for now.


No - if all men are bought, all men are redeemed!

Where is that written?


That interpretation makes a nonsense of "you were bought at a price" in 1 Cor 6:20 - immediately before, Paul says "you are not your own" - so are unbelievers in the power of the devil and destined for hell "God's own people"?

Not it doesn't. We are bought with a price. The whole world is paid for. Only a belief system makes it necessary to change the meanings of the other verses instead of accepting them as read. Limited atonement is very, very hard to defend. In order to do so, words have to be changed, verses are required to men something different than what they say.

As for election, and being treasured, that is a much easier doctrine to make a case for.

RogerW
Aug 14th 2008, 12:31 AM
The doctrine of Limited Atonement (or Particular Redemption) is probably the most controversial of the doctrines of grace and most difficult to accept by many believers. Limited Atonement states that Christ's redeeming work was intended to save the elect only, and actually secured salvation for them.

This is contrary to the fact that jesus as john said takes away the sin of the world. And the fact that jesus made the propitiary sacrifice not only for us. but the whole world. This would also reject Christ, who said ALL sin will be forgiven men but one. Blasphemy of the holy spirit.

and herin lies the problem. At the great whit throne. no one is judged for sin. they stand on their works. their sin is forgiven. except one. they called the holy spirit a liar. and rejected Gods grace provision he made for them. thus their guilt is not sin. but the one sin

this too states he only died for some. No scriptural.

He did this for everyone. not just the chosen ones.

man must chose of his own free will to have faith in Christ's promise. This states God forced it on them. and kept it from others. this again is not scriptural. but makes men robots.

faith is not a gift. Salvation and eternal life is a gift. it is our free will faith that procures this gift.

sorry I must respectfully still disagree.

You are not disagreeing with me. You questioned whether limited atonement was biblical, so I gave you many, many verses of Scripture to prove to you that limited atonement is taught throughout Scripture. Therefore you must reconcile your free will doctrine to that of Scripture, and you cannot, and since you cannot, you're are disagreeing with the Bible, not with me.

In response to what you have written here, I've already addressed in reply #21 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1748342&postcount=21)

Many Blessings,
RW

Brother Mark
Aug 14th 2008, 12:33 AM
OK guys, let's stay on topic. This is about limited atonement. Also, let's try to avoid the tit for tat stuff.

Diolectic
Aug 14th 2008, 12:55 AM
[/font]Having read your responses, I'd say you were 100& Arminian. Why do you say you aren't?I'm a Semi-Pelagian Molinist.

However, it does lean more to the Arminian side.

Bryan43
Aug 14th 2008, 01:04 AM
You are not disagreeing with me. You questioned whether limited atonement was biblical, so I gave you many, many verses of Scripture to prove to you that limited atonement is taught throughout Scripture. Therefore you must reconcile your free will doctrine to that of Scripture, and you cannot, and since you cannot, you're are disagreeing with the Bible, not with me.

In response to what you have written here, I've already addressed in reply #21 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1748342&postcount=21)

Many Blessings,
RW


And I showed you verses that contradict what you believe. so you must either satisfy the supposed contradictions. or continue to live in contradiction to Gods word.

would you not agree??

Gods word can not contradict. or else it is all a lie. and we are believing for nothing.

Laish
Aug 14th 2008, 01:05 AM
Hi poochie
Although I subscribe to the the reformed thological Christian world view I thought that I could give you my two cents
If you are going to write a rebut to the doctrine of limited atonement . I would suggest you read the pro material with Bible at arms reach an see if what is being said lines up with the Word of God . The anti position books an websites are written with a certain bias. I would suggest you read What is reformed theology by R.C. Sproul or why I am not an Arminian by Robert A.Perterson an Michael D.Williams . both are good books an present arguments with scripture references . If you can refute the given examples using your belief in what the Bible says you will be using your own research in sted of something found on a website or what you saw in a book .
PS I prefer the term Christ's purposeful atonement wich is more acurate in my opinion .
Your brother in Christ
Bill

Firefighter
Aug 14th 2008, 01:21 AM
This is from the blog...



Introduction
For those well acquainted with the Calvinist-Arminian debate, Reformation Arminianism (or Classic Arminianism) is a theological system which emphasizes universal atonement within a framework of Calvinistic total depravity and the penal satisfaction view of the atonement.

For those less acquainted with such matters, Reformation Arminianism is first of all a way of understanding how salvation is accomplished within the main lines of Protestantism, which tends to emphasize human freedom of the will rather than a deterministic/predestinarian approach.

Reformation Arminianism is an older cousin to Wesleyan Arminianism, the latter being propagated in the American churches through denominations such as some Brethren groups, Methodist groups, Nazarene and Holiness groups, and by many Pentecostal/Charismatic groups. These groups traditionally have rejected total depravity and penal satisfaction view of atonement, and are well known for viewing salvation as something which can be lost at a moment's indulgence in sin (i.e., "Repeat Regeneration").

Reformation Arminianism, in contrast, is an accurate reflection of Arminius' own theological urgencies and is subject to perhaps only 25% of Calvinistic refutational argumentation, leaving about 75% to knock over straw men. In many ways, Reformation Arminianism assumes the some of the important urgencies of the larger Reformed movement, and is several steps closer to Calvinism than Wesleyan Arminianism.

These issues have been hotly debated since the late 1500s, but seemed to lag much in the 1970s-1990s. During this period Calvinism seemed to be on the decline, prompting such journal articles as the cleverly titled, "Where Have All the TULIPs Gone?" However, in the last 10-15 years, there has been a tremendous resurgence of Calvinism, putting this important issue back on the table for discussion as local churches find themselves in the midst of the debate.

Presuppositions
Reformation Arminian soteriology, like Calvinism, presupposes holiness as the basic character of God which is absolute. Thus, sin must be punished. A sin against an infinite and absolutely holy God demands an infinite and eternal punishment. Consequently, for Calvinists and Reformation Arminians alike, hell is not an arbitrarily created punishment, but rather one which is necessary to the holiness of God. God can't just simply forgive sin; sin must be punished. God's wrath must be satisfied.

Penal Satisfaction View of the Atonement
Reformation Arminianism and Calvinism both view Jesus death as substitutionary. Instead of God's wrath being poured out upon deserving sinners, Jesus died in their place, bearing the full wrath of God. Traditional Wesleyan Arminians believe that Jesus' death was not a sin payment, but rather an astonishing demonstration of God's love for humanity, designed to draw them to the Father. In contrast, Reformation Arminianism and Calvinism both agree that Jesus' death was a payment for sin to satisfy God's wrath. The sole point of disparity between Reformation Arminianism and Calvinism regarding the atonement is not its nature, but its extent: was it universal, or did Jesus only provide payment for the sin debt of the elect?

Penal Satisfaction: A Double Payment?
A recurring argument in the debate against Reformation Arminianism is that if Jesus' death was a payment for sin, and if Jesus died for all humanity, then how could unbelievers rightly be sent to hell for sins which were already paid? Universal atonement, then, was argued to teach either universal salvationism (everyone goes to heaven), or to imply an unjust double payment for sin. (One wonders if this argument may have driven later Arminians to reject penal satisfaction.)

Reformation Arminianism unties the knot by appealing to the idea that the atonement was provided for everyone, but only applied to believers. (Lewis Sperry Chafer was one person who wrote a strong article to this effect, which was republished in a DTS journal in the late 1970s or early 1980s.)

Calvinists have a strong knee jerk reaction to the notion of an atonement which is provided but not applied, as witnessed in Murray's work Redemption Accomplished and Applied. However, the careful Calvinist must concede that even within a Calvinistic system, atonement consists first of substitutionary payment followed second by application of the payment.

This two-fold aspect of the atonement is, in principle, assumed by both Calvinists and Reformation Arminians. The difference is that Calvinists think that the atonement is applied automatically and co-extensively to the elect at the God-ordained time, while Reformation Arminians think that the atonement is applied not automatically, but on the condition of faith. Actually, to be precise, Reformation Arminians think that the atonement is applied to the individual's account when the person is united with Christ through faith. But at any rate, both sides explain salvation in terms of the atonement being provided, and then applied—either automatically, or conditionally.

If Calvinistic atonement is not explained in terms of first being provided followed subsequently with its application, then a very strange scenario emerges wherein the elect end up having been eternally justified, without ever being children of wrath and under condemnation and without God in the world. The whole point of salvation is that we actually lived in disobedience to God, but that God rescued us from this situation. If atonement was automatically applied at the point of Christ's sacrificial death, then the elect really didn't have an old way of life from which to be rescued. At this point, however, I'm not trying to defend or refute one position or the other, but only to assert that both sides must hold to a two stage salvation event, one in which atonement is first provided, followed by the application of the atonement to the individual.

Total Depravity
Reformation Arminians take total depravity seriously. With Calvinists, they affirm that by himself, an individual cannot understand biblical revelation, or put his faith in Jesus, or do anything to earn salvation. The difference between the two is that Calvinists think that regeneration must occur first for these things to happen, while Arminians believe that God is capable of enabling a person to believe, with the result being that God regenerates him.

To put it more starkly, Calvinists don't have any room for the idea that God could enable an unregenerate person to believe, while Reformation Arminians insist that God enables belief prior to regeneration. Of course, the Calvinist position is tied to the notion that God's grace is irresistible, and whoever is called cannot do anything but respond in faith. In contrast, Reformation Arminians think that a person whom God convicts is enabled to believe, but can continue to resist.

In some sense, the Reformation Arminian position is not really an assertion of the human's free will. According to Reformation Arminianism, the individual by himself is still unable to choose God by his own free will. His nature is such that he cannot overcome his propensity toward rebellion by his own strength. Like Calvinism, Reformation Arminianism believes that it is only by God's gracious intervention that a person could overcome his total depravity. The difference lies in the fact that Calvinists think that God cannot enable a person to believe without first regenerating him, while Reformation Arminians think that the enabling happens prior to regeneration.

Salvation through Faith
Calvinism and Reformation Arminianism have the same nuanced definition of faith. I can't quote him exactly, but the Calvinist J.I. Packer defines faith along the lines of a person coming to the point of total self-abnegation where he understands that he has no resources of his own to merit salvation, and a complete trust in Jesus and his work on the cross for salvation. This is a good definition, and Reformation Arminians should be happy with it.

On the other hand, Calvinists have often charged that Arminians seem to make faith into a work worthy of salvation. This might be a Wesleyan Arminian perspective, but Arminius and Reformation Arminianism would strongly deny it. In the Reformation Arminian system, faith is not a meritorious act.

However, faith is the condition or agency through which salvation comes, as attested by the Pauline formula that salvation is through faith. Calvinists have objected to this position first on the ground mentioned before that unregenerate people cannot believe, and second, on the ground that this would make salvation by works.

I find it entirely ironic that Paul's main thrust is that if you pursue salvation by faith, then you are not pursuing it by works, to use his language to the conclusion of Romans 9. Assuming the same definition of faith, as outlined above, if salvation is by faith, then it is not by works. Simply put, when the Calvinist claims that Arminians believe in a works-salvation, the response is that if it is by faith, by definition it cannot be by works.

And if God in his sovereignty chooses to make faith the condition whereby the atonement is applied, then who are you, O man, to say otherwise?

We are left to conclude then, that if God is capable of enabling an unregenerate person to choose to believe in him, and if faith is not a work, and if God established faith as a condition for salvation, then Reformation Arminianism's view of salvation through faith is internally consistent.

Robert E. Picirilli (Grace, Faith and Free Will) has made the case that the ultimate issue between Calvinism and Reformation Arminianism is whether or not salvation is through faith. It seems that Calvinism has a very difficult time speaking clearly on this issue. On one hand, Calvinists want to affirm that salvation is by grace through faith, but on the other hand, they seem to formulate much of their views as if faith is the happy response of having been saved, as if the Pauline formula said, "Salvation by grace unto faith."

The Issue of Continuance
If salvation is by grace through faith, Reformation Arminians argue by extension that continuance in salvation (i.e., eternal security) is also by grace through faith: "salvation by grace through faith; continuance in salvation by grace through faith."

Ironically, Arminius himself claimed that he wasn't prepared to take a position on whether or not a genuinely saved person could ever make shipwreck of his faith, explaining there are strong passages on both sides of the issue, and urging that further study is needed. Arminius' heirs, however, reject the notion that once you are saved, you are always saved.

Reformation Arminianism differs remarkably from Wesleyan Arminian on this issue. Wesleyan Arminians seem to think that a true believer is subject to losing his salvation by sinning. Ultimately, their view seems best explained as "salvation by grace through faith; continuance in salvation by not sinning."

In contrast, the Calvinist position on continuance seems best expressed as, "salvation by grace unto faith; continuance in grace unto faith."

Dialog
The Calvinist-Arminian dialog probably ought to proceed along these lines. Unfortunately, J.I. Packer's classic article "Arminianisms" which has informed so much of the Calvinist animus against Arminianism betrays little or no awareness of Arminius or of Reformation Arminianism (he knows only of "Rational Arminianism" and "Evangelical Arminianism," i.e., Wesleyanism). As a result, a huge amount of the Calvinist animus is against straw men or, at least, against a lesser form of Arminianism which makes a much easier target than Reformation Arminianism.

Posted by Rev. James M. Leonard

RogerW
Aug 14th 2008, 01:52 AM
And I showed you verses that contradict what you believe. so you must either satisfy the supposed contradictions. or continue to live in contradiction to Gods word.

would you not agree??

Gods word can not contradict. or else it is all a lie. and we are believing for nothing.

Hi Bryan,

This is very true, God's Word cannot contradict. In one reply you made reference to John 1:29 I believe, "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." I have already given a reply #21 to show how the Reformed view does not cause contradiction in Scripture.

The doctrine of free will forces many contradictions upon Scripture, can you reconcile these contradictions for me? As you have well stated if you cannot then your doctrine is, a lie.

Your doctrine says we choose Christ for salvation. How do you reconcile that with the following verses telling us the Lord chooses whosoever He wills. Now I am aware there are some verses that appear to say fallen sinners can choose the Lord before regeneration, but that does not solve your problem. You still need to reconcile all of Scripture so there is no contradiction. Because very clearly the following verses tell us it is God Who chooses.

Ex 6:7 And I will take you to me for a people, and I will be to you a God: and ye shall know that I am the LORD your God, which bringeth you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians.

De 4:37 And because he loved thy fathers, therefore he chose their seed after them, and brought thee out in his sight with his mighty power out of Egypt;

De 7:6 For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.

Mt 25:34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

Joh 15:16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

Ga 4:30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.

Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

1Pe 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

Joh 15:19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.

Joh 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

There are many more verses, but lets begin here. Please show me how you reconcile your doctrine of free will so that there is no contradiction with these verses in Scripture.

Many Blessings,
RW

Brother Mark
Aug 14th 2008, 02:06 AM
OK guys. Stepping in as a mod. This thread is not about "free will" or "election". Please do not hijack the thread from the OP. It is about limited atonement. Let's stay on track.

RogerW
Aug 14th 2008, 02:13 AM
OK guys. Stepping in as a mod. This thread is not about "free will" or "election". Please do not hijack the thread from the OP. It is about limited atonement. Let's stay on track.

Greetings Mark,

How can one discuss the doctrine of limited atonement without bringing in the doctrine of free will and election. If limited atonement is indeed biblical, it can only be biblical because God has predestined some to receive eternal life from eternity past. And if limited atonement is not indeed biblical, it can only be unbiblical if one can prove that man is born with free will. It is, without doubt impossible to discuss limited atonement without also discussing election and free will. At least it is if you want us to use the Bible to support our view.

Many Blessings,
RW

Brother Mark
Aug 14th 2008, 02:16 AM
Greetings Mark,

How can one discuss the doctrine of limited atonement without bringing in the doctrine of free will and election. If limited atonement is indeed biblical, it can only be biblical because God has predestined some to receive eternal life from eternity past. And if limited atonement is not indeed biblical, it can only be unbiblical if one can prove that man is born with free will. It is, without doubt impossible to discuss limited atonement without also discussing election and free will. At least it is if you want us to use the Bible to support our view.

Many Blessings,
RW

I don't see it that way Roger. I discussed limited atonement without bringing choice, free will, election, etc. in. Stick with limited atonement. Back it up with scripture or refute it with scripture. But this thread isn't about all 5 points. Start another thread if you want to go in that direction.

Redeemed by Grace
Aug 14th 2008, 02:18 AM
Hey guys,

This talk actually will do much better within PP's Romans thread, say around chapters 7 -10 :lol:, if we ever get there....

Redeemed by Grace
Aug 14th 2008, 02:50 AM
I don't see it that way Roger. I discussed limited atonement without bringing choice, free will, election, etc. in. Stick with limited atonement. Back it up with scripture or refute it with scripture. But this thread isn't about all 5 points. Start another thread if you want to go in that direction.

But I do agree with Roger Mark - for your soteriology has a bias that is dictating the separation of will and choice from limited atonement and some of us cannot see it as being separate -- but a part.

Brother Mark
Aug 14th 2008, 03:19 AM
But I do agree with Roger Mark - for your soteriology has a bias that is dictating the separation of will and choice from limited atonement and some of us cannot see it as being separate -- but a part.

That's ok that you see it all as one big package. You are free to show, using scripture, that limited atonement is true if you so desire. If you want to talk about how other doctrines, you are free to do so... in a different thread. ;)

Brother Mark
Aug 14th 2008, 03:20 AM
OK, folks... if you have issues with the modding of this thread, please take it up in chat2mods. This thread isn't the place to discuss it.

Thanks.

scourge39
Aug 14th 2008, 04:13 AM
Whether Calvinist or Arminian, if we affirm that God has absolute foreknowledge, then we have to admit that God himself knows the exact number of people who ultimately will be saved, no more no less. So in essence, the atonement truly is limited. It will accomplish everything God intends for everyone who will be saved. While I am a 5-point Calvinist who affirms limited atonement, I think it's helpful for Arminians to at least consider this alternative way of approaching the issue.

poochie
Aug 14th 2008, 09:28 AM
If it is false as you adamantly proclaim it to be, and you are absolutely certain it is false why did you ask for help to rebut limited atonement? Can not one who is so certain in their doctrine, one who was no less a 5 point Calvinist themself show us how and why you have come to understand that limited atonement is unbiblical?

RW

I dont want to be rude. But you need to re-read my original message. I was asking for resources. I was not asking for help.

But thanks anyways I already had a guy who agrees with me email me 6 PDF journals. Just t be fair he emailed me 2 support journals of the doctrine so my article can it address it fairly.

Brother Mark
Aug 14th 2008, 03:48 PM
OK folks, again, let's not make this thread into election/non-election. It's about limited atonement. Please stay on track.

Brother Mark
Aug 14th 2008, 04:06 PM
OK guys. Final warning, the next poster that speaks against mod action in this thread will get infracted. Stay on topic. You got an issue with the edict, then take it up in chat2mods. ;)

Bryan43
Aug 14th 2008, 04:35 PM
scripture says:

1 John 2:2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=69&chapter=2&verse=2&version=50&context=verse)
And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world

John would not be talking about the world in a singular matter, as he seperated the term our (the church) with the world (the cosmos system)

Hebrews 2:17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=65&chapter=2&verse=17&version=50&context=verse)
Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.

Please note. The author did not use the term "his people" but "the people" meaning everyone. If jesus just made a propitiary sacrifice for His people. the author would have said so.

Romans 3:25 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=3&verse=25&version=50&context=verse)
whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed,

Again please note, Before the law, there was no sin in the likeness of the law. How could one be charged with adultry, unless there is a law that says, thou shalt not commit adultry. But as paul says. God passed over the sins previously commited. from the time of adam until present. with or without the law.

Mark 3:28 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=48&chapter=3&verse=28&version=50&context=verse)
“Assuredly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they may utter;

Please note. Jesus uses the term sons of men. Not sons of God. How can a sin be forgiven the sons of men if they were not paid for by Christ?

Mark 3:29 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=48&chapter=3&verse=29&version=50&context=verse)
but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation”—

And finaly we see the only sin Christ did not propitiate, or pay the penalty for. the act of calling the holy spirit a liar. and rejecting his truth, turning it into somethingn else.

when the unbeliever stands in front of Christ at the great white throne, he will not be condemned for any personal sin. he will be condemned for the unpardonable sin.

9Marksfan
Aug 14th 2008, 10:18 PM
when the unbeliever stands in front of Christ at the great white throne, he will not be condemned for any personal sin. he will be condemned for the unpardonable sin.

So he should have atoned for it himself by believing, right?

Brother Mark
Aug 14th 2008, 10:23 PM
So he should have atoned for it himself by believing, right?

Neither calvinist nor arminians teach that man makes atonement for himself. Both teach it is the blood of Jesus.

Bryan43
Aug 14th 2008, 11:34 PM
So he should have atoned for it himself by believing, right?

how could he atone it for himself?

If he would have accepted Christ. and not called the holy spirit a liar. he would not need it to be attoned. he would have not commited it.

make sense??

it is the rest of his sin Christ paid the atonement for.

9Marksfan
Aug 15th 2008, 09:34 AM
how could he atone it for himself?

If he would have accepted Christ. and not called the holy spirit a liar. he would not need it to be attoned. he would have not commited it.

But what about his rejection of the Holy Spirit - and Christ - for his life up to that point?


make sense??

Frankly, no.


it is the rest of his sin Christ paid the atonement for.

So you agree that his unbelief is sin, right? - so he atones for it by believing? If you say "no", then why do you say "the REST of his sin"? If Christ did not atone for his unbelief, he must atone for it himself by believing - that is the only conclusion you can come to.

Bryan43
Aug 15th 2008, 10:17 AM
But what about his rejection of the Holy Spirit - and Christ - for his life up to that point?
up to what point? The moment he stands in front of God? it is too late then.



So you agree that his unbelief is sin, right? - so he atones for it by believing? If you say "no", then why do you say "the REST of his sin"? If Christ did not atone for his unbelief, he must atone for it himself by believing - that is the only conclusion you can come to.


I think we have to look at it in the text. jesus told them they were in danger of commiting the unpardonable sin. He did not come out and say they did it. even though they outright said it was satan and not the holy spirit who did the miracles. they were in the process though. if they did not change, they would risk completing the sin. which would then be unforgivable.

God is a patient God. he gives us until the day we are taken of this earth to repent and trust him. It is at the point we die, if we have not repented, and come to him, that the sin is completed, and it is unforgivable.

If you repent on earth, you never completed the sin. thus you could not be charged for it.

Make sense?? I hope

alethos
Aug 15th 2008, 10:47 AM
O, that the smell of the beautiful, biblical TULIP would prevail as it did in the time of Dordt:


I looked in my concordance in attempt to locate where this alledged TULIP is located. I discovered that TULIP is not a Biblical word.

Brother Mark
Aug 15th 2008, 11:04 AM
OK guys. Stay on track. No need to discuss other parts of TULIP pro or con. Let's stick with limited atonement.

Diolectic
Aug 15th 2008, 09:05 PM
But what about his rejection of the Holy Spirit - and Christ - for his life up to that point?

So you agree that his unbelief is sin, right? - so he atones for it by believing? If you say "no", then why do you say "the REST of his sin"? If Christ did not atone for his unbelief, he must atone for it himself by believing - that is the only conclusion you can come to.Example:
A man on death row receaved a pardon from the mayor.
The man hated the mayor som much that he took the death penalty of which has been parsoned.
Same for those whom reject Christ.
He had pardoned their sentence, but they will have nothing of Him.

Just as the children of Israel had to aply the blood on thir own door posts, so man must aply Christ blood to themselves.
The sacrifice has been slaine, we must aknowledge and accept it as for ourselves.

As the serpent on the Pole must be looked upon to see their judgment, so we too must look upon Christ to see ours.

9Marksfan
Aug 15th 2008, 11:27 PM
Example:
A man on death row receaved a pardon from the mayor.
The man hated the mayor som much that he took the death penalty of which has been parsoned.
Same for those whom reject Christ.
He had pardoned their sentence, but they will have nothing of Him.

In a limited way (sorry, no pun intended!), I guess this is true of those who die in their sins - but it doesn't account for the seeking shepherd of our souls who will call all of His sheep to Himself and enable them to believe in Him and His blood.


Just as the children of Israel had to aply the blood on thir own door posts, so man must aply Christ blood to themselves.
The sacrifice has been slaine, we must aknowledge and accept it as for ourselves.

As the serpent on the Pole must be looked upon to see their judgment, so we too must look upon Christ to see ours.

Amen and amen!

BroRog
Aug 16th 2008, 12:29 AM
If I understand correctly, the doctrine of Limited Atonement is the logical implication of two theories: 1. Unconditional Election, and 2. Anselm's Satisfaction theory of the atonement.

Anselm proposed a theory of the atonement based on the structure and analogy of an economic model. In simple terms, Jesus death on the cross paid our debt to justice. Using monetary terms, it's as if I owed God a million dollars and Jesus paid it.

One can readily see the difficulty with the idea that Jesus' death on the cross paid for the judicial debt of each and every person on earth who ever lived. By this reckoning, God would be obligated to give eternal life to each and every person on earth, regardless of whether or not they remained unrepentant.

And so, the doctrine of Limited Atonement seeks to solve this problem, assigning the atoning sacrifice only to the elect, i.e. those whom God is actually saving.

Nevertheless, if St. Anselm's theory is incorrect, then the debate over limited atonement or unlimited atonement is moot. I am one the side of those who question St. Anselm's theory and adopt a completely different theory of the atonement instead.

Perhaps in a different thread.

Diolectic
Aug 16th 2008, 12:38 AM
Originally Posted by Diolectic
Example:
A man on death row receaved a pardon from the mayor.
The man hated the mayor som much that he took the death penalty of which has been parsoned.
Same for those whom reject Christ.
He had pardoned their sentence, but they will have nothing of Him.
In a limited way (sorry, no pun intended!), I guess this is true of those who die in their sins - but it doesn't account for the seeking shepherd of our souls who will call all of His sheep to Himself and enable them to believe in Him and His blood.All mankind are able to believe in truth & facts, therefore it does count.

a) Fact/Truth: there is a God.
Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God has showed it unto them.
:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and deity; so that they are without excuse:


b) Fact/Truth: Christ was a real person

c) Fact/Truth: He was God in the flesh.
One can not say Jesus is a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. ... Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, One must accept the fact that He was and is God."

Those who so called "can not" believe are only willfuly, stubornly, volitionaly refusing the truth, and they will be judged for that.

d) Fact/Truth: Jesus did die on the cross.
Act 26:26 For the king knoweth of these things, before whom also I speak freely: for I am persuaded that none of these things are hidden from him; for this thing was not done in a corner.

e) Fact/Truth: Jesus did raise from the dead
1Corinth 15:16 For if none of the dead are raised to life, then Christ has not risen;
:17 and if Christ has not risen, your faith is a vain thing--you are still in your sins.
:18 It follows also that those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.
:19 If in this present life we have a *hope* resting on Christ, and nothing more, we are more to be pitied than all the rest of the world.
:20 But, in reality, Christ *has* risen from among the dead, being the first to do so of those who are asleep.

f)Fact/Truth: The Bible is factualy true to history; Bible prophecy prooves this.

There is absolutly no need for God to enable them to believe.
However, there is absolutly all the need in the world for God to have them to believe, for there is no other name under heaven given among people by which we must be saved(Acts 4:12).

9Marksfan
Aug 16th 2008, 12:40 AM
If I understand correctly, the doctrine of Limited Atonement is the logical implication of two theories: 1. Unconditional Election, and 2. Anselm's Satisfaction theory of the atonement.

Anselm proposed a theory of the atonement based on the structure and analogy of an economic model. In simple terms, Jesus death on the cross paid our debt to justice. Using monetary terms, it's as if I owed God a million dollars and Jesus paid it.

One can readily see the difficulty with the idea that Jesus' death on the cross paid for the judicial debt of each and every person on earth who ever lived. By this reckoning, God would be obligated to give eternal life to each and every person on earth, regardless of whether or not they remained unrepentant.

And so, the doctrine of Limited Atonement seeks to solve this problem, assigning the atoning sacrifice only to the elect, i.e. those whom God is actually saving.

Nevertheless, if St. Anselm's theory is incorrect, then the debate over limited atonement or unlimited atonement is moot. I am one the side of those who question St. Anselm's theory and adopt a completely different theory of the atonement instead.

Perhaps in a different thread.

Go on - tell us! Governmental?