Limited vs unlimited atonement?

[JLB777]

a) Jesus died for the sins of the elect. Unbelievers have to go to Hell to pay for their sin.
b) Jesus died for the sins of everyone, except for the unforgivable sin (continued unbelief). Unbelievers go to Hell because of that sin.

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. John 3:16

Jesus died for the sins of the world, that who so ever believes, should not perish, but have everlasting life.

[A good study and understanding of what believe entails is important]


The unforgivable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

Unbelief can be forgiven is someone chooses to believe.

If unbelief was the unforgivable sin, then no one could be saved.




JLB

 

[Dave-W]

You are correct. Jesus forgave many people without the shedding of any blood.

Not really. They were covered by His Own Blood, which was shed before the foundation of the World.

As God, Jesus' sacrifice existed OUTSIDE of time.

Rev 13.8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

 

[Late Apex]

One point at a time is a good idea.

His satisfaction comes soley from doing the will of the Father as it has for all of etenity.

The will of the Father is that He lose none of "those given to Him by the Father" among other things.

His satisfaction comes not from saving everyone in the entire world for whom His blood was shed. It does not say that.

As for how He could have atoned for the sins of the entire world and reconciled the entire world to Himself (those eventually saved and those eternally lost) -- I have attempted to give an example of how it may be from God's perspective in post number 16 and elsewhere.

My postion is that if there is even one other way to look at things which does not require the so called logic of limited atonement - then we should simply go with what the scriptures say and not beyond that.

The objection to that particular idea seems to stem from the idea that Christ died once for all and that eternal atonement would show Him as dying over and over again.

Eternal deaths no more follow logically from eternal atonement then eternal "lives" follow from eternal life.

Besides that eternally based suffering's possible way of looking at things - we have the lot in life of every Christian who has ever lived as a testemony.

That testemony is that people can and do live under the wrath of God for almost entire lifetimes on this earth before being justified by faith. We are not justified by the atonement of Christ at Calvary in and of itself nor are the people of the world who spend eternity in that condition justified by that atonement.

The atonement must be coupled with faith. Both Calvinists and Arminians believe that - or at least should.

I have often heard Arminians argue against Calvinistic election based on the atonement being for everyone. They say something like - "we are not saved by election -we are saved by our faith". Calvinists then rightly counter by saying that no one has ever said that election saves anyone in and of itself.

Now - in the limited atoement arguement - Calvinsts seem to make the same kind of straw man arguement against unlimited atonement by saying that if Christ died for the siins of everyone then everyone would be saved.

That is simply not true. It was not true for me and it was not true for Billy Graham. It had to be coupled with faith.

How that faith comes about is another letter or two of the TULIP. But it has nothing to do with the so called logic of the "L" in TULIP.

I find it interesting that my fellow Reformed brethren do not have any trouble saying that they were once enemies of God and abided under His just wrath even after Christ atoned for their sins until such moment they were called by grace to faith in their personal Damascus moment. But they will not allow that that may be the case eternally for those who don't happpen to be recipients of such grace.

Again - my appeal is not to subscribe to any particular way of looking at the atonement. My appeal is for Calvinists not to do that very thing and look at the atonement with blinders on.

Limited atonemet is said by Calvinists, to be a necessary logical conclusion. It is not.

The other points of TULIP are defendable IMO. But limited atonement is not.

Is an elect child of God really under God's wrath, even in his unregenerate state? I know everything MUST happen in time, as in Jesus Christ HAD to come, HAD to die, etc. However, given that God's elect were known to Him before the world was even created, how can we really say that His elect were under God's wrath for even a moment? God has His elect written in the palm of His hand.

I would not call it wrath, I would call it chastisement because the end result is glorification, and in this life to be more closely confirmed to the image of His son. At the very least, a different kind of wrath. My 15 year old son may act like my enemy, and I may press on him to facilitate a change, however, he will always be my son.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Is an elect child of God really under God's wrath, even in his unregenerate state? I know everything MUST happen in time, as in Jesus Christ HAD to come, HAD to die, etc. However, given that God's elect were known to Him before the world was even created, how can we really say that His elect were under God's wrath for even a moment? God has His elect written in the palm of His hand.

I would not call it wrath, I would call it chastisement because the end result is glorification, and in this life to be more closely confirmed to the image of His son. At the very least, a different kind of wrath. My 15 year old son may act like my enemy, and I may press on him to facilitate a change, however, he will always be my son.

One does not become a child of God when he is elected before the foundation of the world. One becomes a child of God when he believes and is justified before God. Until the time when he becomes a child of God he is as lost in unbelief as the reprobate are.

God's wrath is revealed from Heaven in this present age because of unbelif. You and I were in unbelief before being adopted in Christ through faith.

Excuse my printing out a long passage. I know you have heard it before and could look it up yourself if necessary. But it may help in the thread to have it here for all to see.

Romans 1:18-32
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against ALL ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."

And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them."

That was the condition me and it was the condition of the likes of Ted Bundy until such time as he was brought to faith by grace just before his death.

If one has, as it were, gone down to the river and identified with fallen mankind in the process of obtaining forgivness through faith - he will have no trouble seeing himself under the wrath of God and in need of the work of Christ on his behalg.

The wrath of God is revealed in this age through escalating unbelief and debauchery of various kinds. It is the "judgment of abandonment" to the ways of the rebellious world.

I was in that condition before my conversion. I was becoming more and more rebellious toward God up until the time of His effectual calling of me. The same was true of the Apostle Paul as Saul of Tarsus.

Notice that it specifically says that God's wrath abides on "all" unrighteousness - not just that of the likes of Adolf Hitler or any others of the reprobate.

That abiding under the wrath of God did not cease until I was justified through faith in Jesus Christ.

 

[Late Apex]

One does not become a child of God when he is elected before the foundation of the world. One becomes a child of God when he believes and is justified before God. Until the time when he becomes a child of God he is as lost in unbelief as the reprobate are.

God's wrath is revealed from Heaven in this present age because of unbelif. You and I were in unbelief before being adopted in Christ through faith.

Excuse my printing out a long passage. I know you have heard it before and could look it up yourself if necessary. But it may help in the thread to have it here for all to see.

Romans 1:18-32
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against ALL ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."

And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them."

That was the condition me and it was the condition of the likes of Ted Bundy until such time as he was brought to faith by grace just before his death.

If one has, as it were, gone down to the river and identified with fallen mankind in the process of obtaining forgivness through faith - he will have no trouble seeing himself under the wrath of God and in need of the work of Christ on his behalg.

The wrath of God is revealed in this age through escalating unbelief and debauchery of various kinds. It is the "judgment of abandonment" to the ways of the rebellious world.

I was in that condition before my conversion. I was becoming more and more rebellious toward God up until the time of His effectual calling of me. The same was true of the Apostle Paul as Saul of Tarsus.

Notice that it specifically says that God's wrath abides on "all" unrighteousness - not just that of the likes of Adolf Hitler or any others of the reprobate.

That abiding under the wrath of God did not cease until I was justified through faith in Jesus Christ.

Yes, of course, however not all men have faith,(it is the gift of God) not all men are chastised or will be, not all men are elect. I may indeed have been under God's "wrath" while unregenerate, but I must say that God has done something more for the elect than the non elect. Therefore, the wrath cannot be the same, or at least the application of said "wrath" is different, otherwise we would all end up in the same basket, fried to a crisp. If the ultimate first cause and finisher of salvation is God, which is what I believe, something more was done for the elect than non elect, unless of course, you believe man has a larger part in his own salvation, which I do not believe.

 

[sdowney717]

Yes, of course, however not all men have faith,(it is the gift of God) not all men are chastised or will be, not all men are elect. I may indeed have been under God's "wrath" while unregenerate, but I must say that God has done something more for the elect than the non elect. Therefore, the wrath cannot be the same, or at least the application of said "wrath" is different, otherwise we would all end up in the same basket, fried to a crisp. If the ultimate first cause and finisher of salvation is God, which is what I believe, something more was done for the elect than non elect, unless of course, you believe man has a larger part in his own salvation, which I do not believe.

It is God's mercy we are not consumed, Romans 8 says all things... see there are two things mentioned here. Those who love God, the second is to those who are the called of Jesus Christ to obtain salvation. Such persons there was a time when they were ignorant of Christ and lost, yet God was ordering the circumstances in their life to bring them to Himself.

28 And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. 29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.
Paul also describes his own prior state, how God had mercy on him as he had acted ignorantly in unbelief, 1 Timothy 1:12-17
I like how Paul describes that when it pleased God, God revealed His Son in Paul, which for us all, there is a time of revealing of Christ in us by God, and it is up to God as to when that time is determined in our life and this is only for those whom He has foreknown and predestined beforehand, before they were born. God has His perfect way in His people.

Galatians 1:14-17New King James Version (NKJV)
14 And I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries in my own nation, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers.

15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, 16 to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Yes, of course, however not all men have faith,(it is the gift of God) not all men are chastised or will be, not all men are elect. I may indeed have been under God's "wrath" while unregenerate, but I must say that God has done something more for the elect than the non elect. Therefore, the wrath cannot be the same, or at least the application of said "wrath" is different, otherwise we would all end up in the same basket, fried to a crisp. If the ultimate first cause and finisher of salvation is God, which is what I believe, something more was done for the elect than non elect, unless of course, you believe man has a larger part in his own salvation, which I do not believe.

I subscribe to the total inability of anyfallen man (elect or otherwise) to come to Christ without special grace), the predestination of all things which happen in the universe, the unconditional election of believers, that all those elected before the foundation of the world will eventually come to God and escape the condition they were in, and the eternal security of all those who so come to God and believe.

I believe that all men (even the elect) are in exactly the same condtion sitting under the just wrath of God (with the abandonment by God to the lust of the flesh) until such time as they are called by God and the truth of the gospel is revealed unto saving faith and justification.

".........................Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God." 1 Corinthians 6

But I say again what all Reformed theologians teach. Even the elect are under the just wrath of God and without God and without hope in this world up until they are acted upon in grace unto salvation.

If that condition can be a fact for the majority of the life of a person (such as me) after their sins were atoned for by Jesus Christ then there is no logical reason to teach that that condition could not go on for eternity.

It is perfectly logical based on experience alone even if the scriptures didn't teach it (and they do IMO and in the opinion of the majority of evangelicals) - to believe that the atonement of Jesus Christ was on behalf of all men.

Some do come to saving faith and some do not. Some escape the condition they were in by grace through faith. Others do not and go into eternity still under God's just wrath.

The other 4 points of TULIP stand on scriptural supports. Limited atonement IMO does not.

It is based on faulty logic as well as a lack of clear scriptural support.

It's difficult enough to convince people of the scriptural teaching of the inability of man, salvation by grace, the surity of that grace coming to fruition issuing in faith, and the security of those who have placed their trust in God -- without adding an unscriptural, unnecessary, and offensive doctrine such limited atonement into the mix.

 

[Marvin Knox]

As I have studied TULIP, I see all 5 points as interdependent.
IOW, if you lose one of the points, you throw the whole system off.

As I have studied TULIP, I see all points with the exception of "limited atonement" as interdependent.

Limited atonement stands independant of the other points and glaringly offensive to new and weak Christians.

Let me give you another option:
The "travail of His soul" inaugurated the New Covenant. IT also opened the door to Gentiles being brought into the Covenant.
Seeing the billions that would come to faith in the God of the Bible via the New Covenant would be the "satisfaction."

Not sue how this fits in.

But the scripture shows a clear look at the travail of the soul of God's servant in the garden when He sweat great drops of blood and when He prayed that this cup be taken from Him if there was any other way.

Indeed. The door is open to all. But the choice is ours.

I agree with that. But whether a fallen man can, in and of himself, choose or even understand the things of God is another matter.

I heard one minister say that in his bible study he found the only thing GOD Himself held sacred was mankind's freedom of choice.

That would be wrong teaching.

The only thing God holds sacred is Himself and His promises.

Without that freedom of choice, statements like "Choose you this day whom you shall serve" (Josh 24.15) are meaningless.

We do have the freedom of choice.

Just how extensive and willing that freedom is, however, has been the subject of many theological writings.

The choice is ours and it is not the fault of God for giving an order to His creatures even if they are in a condtion where they are under the just and righteous judgment of God while receiving it. (That judgmemt is revealed, according to Romans 1, in the form of "abandonment" to unbelief.)

We are all quite justly under that judgment because all of us are sinners.

If God choses in His grace to make new creatures out of such loathsome beings and leave others under His wrath - we as believers are to praise God for His grace toward us not second guess His right to withhold that grace from other sinners.

We are all (you, me, and Adolf Hitler) of the same kind of clay (sinful clay). God has been very clear that He has the right to make whatever He wishes from that clay. That should be an end to it - at least for believers in salvation by grace.

Praise God for His indescribable grace toward me.

 

[DarthNeo]

a) Jesus died for the sins of the elect. Unbelievers have to go to Hell to pay for their sin.
b) Jesus died for the sins of everyone, except for the unforgivable sin (continued unbelief). Unbelievers go to Hell because of that sin.

Survey says: B is the correct answer!

 

[EmSw]

We are all (you, me, and Adolf Hitler) of the same kind of clay (sinful clay). God has been very clear that He has the right to make whatever He wishes from that clay. That should be an end to it - at least for believers in salvation by grace.

Praise God for His indescribable grace toward me.

Uh-oh, it's not the end to it! Maybe you should get the rest of the story, Marvin.

Jeremiah 18
7 At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it;
8 If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.
9 And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it;
10 If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.

According to these verses, does man have something to do with the forming of the clay? What does it mean for a man to turn from their evil? What does it mean for a man to do evil in God's sight?

2 Timothy 2
19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.
20 But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour.
21 If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work.

How about these verses? What does it mean for a man to purge himself?

 

[Dave-W]

Not sue how this fits in.

But the scripture shows a clear look at the travail of the soul of God's servant in the garden when He sweat great drops of blood and when He prayed that this cup be taken from Him if there was any other way.

How it fits in is the fact that Salvation is by Covenant.

And as Hebrews 9 tells us, covenants must be inaugurated by the shedding of blood. Our Lord's travail brought forth the New Covenant. And here is what is found by being in the New Covenant:

Jer 31.33 “But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the Lord, “I will put My [Torah**] within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the Lord, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”

** The primary meaning of the Hebrew Torah is "teaching" and "instruction" rather than "Law."

 

[Late Apex]

I subscribe to the total inability of anyfallen man (elect or otherwise) to come to Christ without special grace), the predestination of all things which happen in the universe, the unconditional election of believers, that all those elected before the foundation of the world will eventually come to God and escape the condition they were in, and the eternal security of all those who so come to God and believe.

I do not agree. There are many things that are difficult for man to understand and offensive to man's flesh in the Bible, namely Romans 9:13 "As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." Regardless I believe and say with Job "Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him: but I will maintain mine own ways before him."

I still believe Limited Atonement is a Biblical truth. Thank you for the discussion.

 

[FreeGrace2]

a) Jesus died for the sins of the elect. Unbelievers have to go to Hell to pay for their sin.
b) Jesus died for the sins of everyone, except for the unforgivable sin (continued unbelief). Unbelievers go to Hell because of that sin.

Forgot "c":
Jesus died for the sins of everyone (2 Cor 5:14,15, Heb 2:9, 1 John 2:2). Unbelievers go to hell because they never received eternal life through faith (Rev 20:15).

Jesus said He "gives them (believers) eternal life, and they will never perish". John 10:28

 

[Marvin Knox]

How it fits in is the fact that Salvation is by Covenant.

And as Hebrews 9 tells us, covenants must be inaugurated by the shedding of blood. Our Lord's travail brought forth the New Covenant. And here is what is found by being in the New Covenant:

Jer 31.33 “But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the Lord, “I will put My [Torah**] within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the Lord, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”

** The primary meaning of the Hebrew Torah is "teaching" and "instruction" rather than "Law."

Being, as they say, "Reformed" - I am familiar with the idea of covenent.

Having associated with some liberal Presbyterian churches in the past, I realize that many supposed "Calvinists" seem to think that they are in a covenant relationship with God simply by virture of their belongint to a certain church because His blood was shed 2000 years ago.

Liberal Calvinists seem to think that they are proven to be among the elect of God because they subscribe to certain doctrines or belong to a certain group. They are not.

Of course most of us who are evangeical realize that one is not in a covenant realationship with God simply because He shed His blood or simply by virtue of being baptized as a baby or simply by virtue of joining a certain church or simply by virtue of being born into a certain family.

But, just as one is not a true "Israelite" because of those kinds of things, one is only in the covenant through believing on Christ and entering into a persoal relationship.

Likewise - the atonement profits nothing for anyone until they exercise saving faith and stand justified before God. It didn't for you and I or any others of the "elect of God" and it didn't and wont for those who go into eternity without a relationship with God through the shed blood of Christ even though Christ atoned for their sins.

 

[Marvin Knox]

God's unregenerate children may be under His wrath, but are preserved in such a way that they at least exist on earth long enough to be called

Agreed!

But that pertains to unconditional election and irresistable grace and not to limited atonement.

It's difficult enough to convince people of the scriptural teaching of the inability of man, salvation by grace, the surity of that grace coming to fruition issuing in faith, and the security of those who have placed their trust in God -- without adding an unscriptural, unnecessary, and offensive doctrine such limited atonement into the mix.

I do not agree. There are many things that are difficult for man to understand and offensive to man's flesh in the Bible, namely Romans 9:13 "As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." Regardless I believe and say with Job "Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him: but I will maintain mine own ways before him."

You seem to agree with my statement by citing this scripture. I have said that it is difficult to convince people of the the likes of election.
Not sure again of your point here.

I still believe Limited Atonement is a Biblical truth. Thank you for the discussion.

If you continue to believe in limited atonement - that is your perogative of course. But I hope you don't teach anyone that it is an indisputable doctrine based on solid scriptural support and good logic.

If you can spare the time - perhaps you could show scriptural proof for that doctrine other than the faulty logic usually put forth based on the idea that people could not have their sins atoned for and be found in and unacceptable condtion before God.

As I have illustrated - the prior to salvation lives of you and I prove that logic to be faulty.

 

[EmSw]

So Marvin, are you just going to ignore Jeremiah 18? I know, I know, it doesn't square with your theology.

Jeremiah 18
7 At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it;
8 If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.
9 And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it;
10 If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.

 

[Late Apex]

Agreed!

But that pertains to unconditional election and irresistable grace and not to limited atonement.



You seem to agree with my statement by citing this scripture. I have said that it is difficult to convince people of the the likes of election.
Not sure again of your point here.


If you continue to believe in limited atonement - that is your perogative of course. But I hope you don't teach anyone that it is an indisputable doctrine based on solid scriptural support and good logic.

If you can spare the time - perhaps you could show scriptural proof for that doctrine other than the faulty logic usually put forth based on the idea that people could not have their sins atoned for and be found in and unacceptable condtion before God.

As I have illustrated - the prior to salvation lives of you and I prove that logic to be faulty.

Does God deal differently with His elect children (in time) as compared to the non elect? Yes. Therefore, and logically, God's "wrath" cannot be equal (in time) as it is applied to the elect vs. the non elect. The elect are preserved from birth for an eventual outcome, directed and executed by God. Furthermore, since only the elect are saved, why would Christ shed His own blood for the tares who will be cast into the fire?

If I am paying for 20 cars and only get 10, why did I have to pay for the 20? Any logical person will conclude that if I will eventually only get 10 cars, I only need to pay for 10, not 20. Unless, of course, some of the cars will be lost during the journey and the cars have power over and above the purchaser to determine their own destiny, or the purchaser does not have full control over the transaction, which is false. Beyond all this, given that the price paid by Christ is of an immeasurable value, I cannot believe He would waste a drop on what God views as refuse, of which He "never knew." (tares)

There are two types of people in this world.
1. Those that God knew before the foundation of the world.
2. Those that God "never knew."
Is God's wrath applied equally (in time) to #1 as it is to #2 and is it the same type of wrath? No. Why? Because the wrath applied to #1 is in the form of loving chastisement to eventually produce a quickened, justified, and more closely confirmed to the image of Christ, child of God, who will eventually be glorified and see Christ as He is. The wrath applied to #2 is eventually fully dispensed and displayed in an eternal hell. The wrath cannot be equal or at least the application there of. Why? Because it's application in time, purpose, and eventual product is diametrically apposed one to the other. (elect vs. non elect)

 

[Dave-W]

Being, as they say, "Reformed" - I am familiar with the idea of covenant.

From where? Christian institutions, or historical documents and Jewish sources? There is a difference.

 

[Marvin Knox]

From where? Christian institutions, or historical documents and Jewish sources? There is a difference.

All is the answer.
But perhaps you have understanding that I lack - you being, as you say, "Messianic".
Please enlighten me.
Thanks.

Does God deal differently with His elect children (in time) as compared to the non elect? Yes. Therefore, and logically, God's "wrath" cannot be equal (in time) as it is applied to the elect vs. the non elect. The elect are preserved from birth for an eventual outcome, directed and executed by God. Furthermore, since only the elect are saved, why would Christ shed His own blood for the tares who will be cast into the fire?

If I am paying for 20 cars and only get 10, why did I have to pay for the 20? Any logical person will conclude that if I will eventually only get 10 cars, I only need to pay for 10, not 20. Unless, of course, some of the cars will be lost during the journey and the cars have power over and above the purchaser to determine their own destiny, or the purchaser does not have full control over the transaction, which is false. Beyond all this, given that the price paid by Christ is of an immeasurable value, I cannot believe He would waste a drop on what God views as refuse, of which He "never knew." (tares)

There are two types of people in this world.
1. Those that God knew before the foundation of the world.
2. Those that God "never knew."
Is God's wrath applied equally (in time) to #1 as it is to #2 and is it the same type of wrath? No. Why? Because the wrath applied to #1 is in the form of loving chastisement to eventually produce a quickened, justified, and more closely confirmed to the image of Christ, child of God, who will eventually be glorified and see Christ as He is. The wrath applied to #2 is eventually fully dispensed and displayed in an eternal hell. The wrath cannot be equal or at least the application there of. Why? Because it's application in time, purpose, and eventual product is diametrically apposed one to the other. (elect vs. non elect)

The facts are that Christ atoned for your sins at a certain time in history. Perhaps and likely also with eternal consequences within the Godhead seeing as how the lamb was slain before the foundation of the the world.

And yet you were not "saved" in spite of Christ dying for your sins and making atonement for them.

You and I were not saved by the atonement (whatever theory of atonement you subscribe to) in and of itself. The atonement had to be coupled with faith in order for us to be considered justified befoe God and "saved".

Forget if you will the word wrath. No one is saved by the atonement alone - not the elect and certainly not the reprobate. One is saved through faith in spite of the atonement having taken place..

The logic which says that any person can not be in an unsaved condition in spite of the atonement having taken place for him or her simply is not good logic considering what we know about our prior condition.

The supposed doctrine of "limited atonement" stands or falls based on that idea.

Unless, of course, there are scriptures which say clearly that Christ atoned only for the elect.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Does God deal differently with His elect children (in time) as compared to the non elect? Yes. Therefore, and logically, God's "wrath" cannot be equal (in time) as it is applied to the elect vs. the non elect. The elect are preserved from birth for an eventual outcome, directed and executed by God. Furthermore, since only the elect are saved, why would Christ shed His own blood for the tares who will be cast into the fire?

If I am paying for 20 cars and only get 10, why did I have to pay for the 20? Any logical person will conclude that if I will eventually only get 10 cars, I only need to pay for 10, not 20. Unless, of course, some of the cars will be lost during the journey and the cars have power over and above the purchaser to determine their own destiny, or the purchaser does not have full control over the transaction, which is false. Beyond all this, given that the price paid by Christ is of an immeasurable value, I cannot believe He would waste a drop on what God views as refuse, of which He "never knew." (tares)

There are two types of people in this world.
1. Those that God knew before the foundation of the world.
2. Those that God "never knew."
Is God's wrath applied equally (in time) to #1 as it is to #2 and is it the same type of wrath? No. Why? Because the wrath applied to #1 is in the form of loving chastisement to eventually produce a quickened, justified, and more closely confirmed to the image of Christ, child of God, who will eventually be glorified and see Christ as He is. The wrath applied to #2 is eventually fully dispensed and displayed in an eternal hell. The wrath cannot be equal or at least the application there of. Why? Because it's application in time, purpose, and eventual product is diametrically apposed one to the other. (elect vs. non elect)

Forget for a moment the word "wrath" and how it applies to any given person.

The fact is that you and I were "unsaved" in spite of the fact that Christ atoned for our sins some 2000 years ago. (Likely with eternal ramifications as well seeing as how He was "slain from the foundation of the world".)

Whatever "theory" of atonement you or I may subscribe to, the fact is that the atonement and the death of Christ in and of itself did not save us. One can be in a lost condition in spite of that death and atonement.

If that can be true (and is) for people until their death bed - there is no logical reason to teach that it could not be true for eternity.

People are saved through faith.
No faith no salvation (regardless of how that faith came to be).

Salvation = eternity in glory.

No salvation = eternity in Hell.

I have not seen evidence from the scriptures that Christ the atonemetn was only for the elect.

Unless you can show otherwise - Christ died for the sins of the world just as the scriptures clearly teach - not just for a few.