Limited Atonement and it's faults

[BNR32FAN]

Been there, done that. Doesn't interest me.

Yes I would imagine not. So, how do you get around the problem that when the condemned stand before God and they blame Him for their inability to repent and believe?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Yes I would imagine not. So, how do you get around the problem that when the condemned stand before God and they blame Him for their inability to repent and believe?

I don't see a problem. How does that counter what I believe? Truth is, that's a fiction in your mind, that what I believe says that God is to blame. Sin is the act of the sinner.

(Truth is, the facts will be rather compellingly upon their mind —and yours— that they can't blame him.)

 

[Mark Quayle]

You also know my position on election being a result of God’s foreknowledge. How can I preach that God intended to save all but wrote the book of life before creation according to His foreknowledge? That doesn’t make sense.

You got THAT right! It doesn't make sense to do that. Not only do the two not work together, but neither one of them is true, if "foreknowledge" means only fore-seeing, as you imagine it.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I never implied that it saved all, I said it was sufficient to save all.

And that it was intended for all, which, if you admit to God's omnipotence, implies that God accomplished it.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The atonement issue is very emotional to me, my heart wants the sacrifice of Christ to be universal, but that alone wouldn't cut it for me. Though I don't know if I could stay Christian if it turned out the atonement is limited. Because then God would be someone else than I thought He was. You see, it's such an important teaching to me. But me wanting God to be a certain way is not how I know the character of God. When I came to Christ I was so happy that God is good. What if God was evil instead? Knowing God through Christ is very precious to me.

Universal atonement fits both my experience how I came to Christ, and the philosophical aspects. I can't understand how Jesus as a man being sacrificed as a representative of man, can have been sacrificed for anything less than everyone who is a man, which means everyone. It's also the Early Church, where as far as I know there is no hint of the atonement being limited. And lastly, like I said, I don't see any clear cut verse that says the atonement is limited. If it was, I think it would have been clearly stated.

I think you can count on it that the God you know is not what you thought He was, just as it is true for the rest of us. If you take infinite Love and infinite Justice upon infinite Crime upon infinite Creator by mere creatures, it does not invoke sweetness and human goodness, but severity is implied —razor's edge disaster and God's will alone as salvation of those who have offended the Almighty. That is not evil, but mercy.

Again, note, none of us is able to understand the Love of God. WE are the ones who come up with our constructions, our concepts, our words, our use of God's Word —and I mean, all of us, including myself. I easily and happily admit that I don't know either, but we do have some understanding of the truth. My heart is touched to hear your heart concerning the nature of God. You have experienced his mercy and goodness, but you are wrong if you think the only alternative to what you think of him, is that he is an evil god.

 

[Clare73]

I can know about God through Scripture. I can know God through experience.

We are agreed. . .

 

[BNR32FAN]

I don't see a problem. How does that counter what I believe? Truth is, that's a fiction in your mind, that what I believe says that God is to blame. Sin is the act of the sinner.

(Truth is, the facts will be rather compellingly upon their mind —and yours— that they can't blame him.)

But salvation is not a matter of sin but repentance, correct? What separates the condemned from the saved is repentance not sin. Everyone sinned but only those who have repented are saved. So are those who will be condemned able to repent?

 

[Clare73]

I would say it's a yes and no. There is a danger in letting experience govern Scripture. There is also the danger that our life with God becomes so theological that it lacks any real life experience.

Theoretical. . .

If you have the gift of healing or prophesying you know these gifts haven't subsided. It might be hard to know this for sure from just reading Scripture. Now this is just an example.

"Life with God "and "lack of real life experience" is an oxymoron.

There is no life with God without experience of his gracious provision.

 

[BNR32FAN]

You got THAT right! It doesn't make sense to do that. Not only do the two not work together, but neither one of them is true, if "foreknowledge" means only fore-seeing, as you imagine it.

Yes well I quoted numerous scriptures that refuted your theology and you declined to address them so all I can do is provide scripture to support my position, if you can’t explain how they don’t refute your position then your just making empty claims. So you’re saying that it doesn’t make sense that God offered salvation to everyone but not everyone accepted it. What doesn’t make sense about that?it’s a completely plausible scenario that lines up perfectly with scripture and the early church writings.

 

[BNR32FAN]

And that it was intended for all, which, if you admit to God's omnipotence, implies that God accomplished it.

This doesn’t negate that the offer can be extended even tho He knew they wouldn’t accept it. By doing this He will be justified in saying to the condemned that they had every opportunity to be saved just like everyone else.

 

[Clare73]

No that’s not true and you know it. You know full well that I’m opposed to eternal security we’ve had lengthy discussions on that subject several times. So if you know that I am opposed to eternal security

Does the NT agree with that?

"Now it is God who makes both us and you stand firm in Christ. He anointed us, set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts (Jn 14:16-17) as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come." (2 Co 1:22, 2 Co 5:5, Eph 1:4).

 

[Mark Quayle]

But salvation is not a matter of sin but repentance, correct? What separates the condemned from the saved is repentance not sin. Everyone sinned but only those who have repented are saved. So are those who will be condemned able to repent?

What sets the two apart is the will of God. What makes one different from the other is the indwelling Spirit of God.

Repentance is the necessary result of being born again, and this happens only with those to whom God chose to show mercy.

What separates them is the harvest.

 

[Clare73]

You also know my position on election being a result of God’s foreknowledge. How can I preach that God intended to save all but wrote the book of life before creation according to His foreknowledge? That doesn’t make sense.

It doesn't make sense because you have it backwards, the cart before the horse.

The horse is God's divine decree of election before the foundations of the world, while the cart is foreknowledge.

God knows in advance (foreknowledge) what is going to happen because he has decreed in advance that it shall happen.

Election is not the result of foreknowledge (cart), election is the cause of foreknowledge (horse).

 

[zoidar]

I think you can count on it that the God you know is not what you thought He was, just as it is true for the rest of us. If you take infinite Love and infinite Justice upon infinite Crime upon infinite Creator by mere creatures, it does not invoke sweetness and human goodness, but severity is implied —razor's edge disaster and God's will alone as salvation of those who have offended the Almighty. That is not evil, but mercy.

Again, note, none of us is able to understand the Love of God. WE are the ones who come up with our constructions, our concepts, our words, our use of God's Word —and I mean, all of us, including myself. I easily and happily admit that I don't know either, but we do have some understanding of the truth. My heart is touched to hear your heart concerning the nature of God. You have experienced his mercy and goodness, but you are wrong if you think the only alternative to what you think of him, is that he is an evil god.

What I can say is that I realized God is good. When I thought God could have been evil, I don't remember what picture I had of a possible evil God.

I think Jesus makes a good description of who God is. I am careful not to think of God like an ungrasplable being, because God is known through Christ. So I rather think of God as Father, He is personal, which differs from how many non Christians view God.

 

[Clare73]

But salvation is not a matter of sin but repentance, correct? What separates the condemned from the saved is repentance not sin. Everyone sinned but only those who have repented are saved. So are those who will be condemned able to repent?

Salvation is a matter of faith (Eph 2:8-9).

What separates the condemned from the saved is faith (Jn 3:18, Jn 3:6).

Those who are condemned do not believe in and trust on the person and atoning work (blood, Ro 3:25) of Jesus Christ for the remission of their sin and right standing with God's justice; i.e., "not guilty" (justified).

 

[Clare73]

This doesn’t negate that the offer can be extended even tho He knew they wouldn’t accept it. By doing this He will be justified in saying to the condemned that they had every opportunity to be saved just like everyone else.

That is not his justification, i.e., his defense of the facts.
That's human reasoning.

His justification of the facts is: "What do I owe you, who are in rebellion against my rulership, who will not submit to my governance of you in all things and, therefore, are my enemy?" (Ro 5:10)
I owe you nothing.
You have no just cause against me for giving you what I owe you, nothing.

 

[Clare73]

What I can say is that I realized God is good. When I thought God could have been evil, I don't remember what picture I had of a possible evil God.

I think Jesus makes a good description of who God is. I am careful not to think of God like an ungrasplable being, because God is known through Christ. So I rather think of God as Father, He is personal, which differs from how many non Christians view God.

Also we must be careful to have true knowledge of God from throughout his holy word written.
His holy word throughout is the measure (rule) for our personal knowledge of God.

 

[BNR32FAN]

What sets the two apart is the will of God. What makes one different from the other is the indwelling Spirit of God.

Repentance is the necessary result of being born again, and this happens only with those to whom God chose to show mercy.

What separates them is the harvest.

Exactly which brings us right back to the condemned standing before God blaming Him for not allowing them to repent and believe. Is man capable of living a sinless life?

 

[BNR32FAN]

It doesn't make sense because you have it backwards, the cart before the horse.

The horse is God's divine decree of election before the foundations of the world, while the cart is foreknowledge.

God knows in advance (foreknowledge) what is going to happen because he has decreed in advance that it shall happen.

Election is not the result of foreknowledge (cart), election is the cause of foreknowledge (horse).

Yes we’ve discussed this before, God chose who will be saved according to His choice of who will be saved. Your argument is circular that He chose us according to His choosing us.

 

[Clare73]

Yes we’ve discussed this before, God chose who will be saved according to His choice of who will be saved. Your argument is circular that He chose us according to His choosing us.

No, my argument is he chose the elect, like he chose the elect Jacob (Ro 9:11), according to his sovereign will to accomplish his own purposes.

And that sovereign choice of election before the foundations of the world is the source/cause of his foreknowledge now.