• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Limited Atonement and it's faults

BNR32FAN

He’s a Way of life
Site Supporter
Aug 11, 2017
25,584
8,305
Dallas
✟1,065,119.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
No that’s just the Calvinist way of looking at it but it completely ignores John 3:16. For God so loved the world, not because He owed them anything, because He loved them. You do teach that a person cannot repent and believe unless God enables them at that is the reason why people receive the Holy Spirit and are capable of obeying Him, correct? So the condemned have never been given that opportunity and God being omniscient gave commandments knowing full well that they would never be able to keep them. Therefore God knowingly made impossible expectations then punishes them for all eternity for failing to meet those impossible expectations. God never expected man to obey His commandments because He already knew that everyone would fail which is why He made a way for everyone to be saved.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
28,236
7,256
North Carolina
✟333,029.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
No that’s just the Calvinist way of looking at it but it completely ignores John 3:16. For God so loved the world, not because He owed them anything,
And yet he chose only some (1Pe 1:2), not all, according to the foreknowledge (now) of his decree (before the foundation of the world) to choose them.
He chose them because of his decree to do so, not because of anything regarding them, just as he chose Jacob the same way (Ro 9:11-12).
Paul presents Jacob as the pattern of God's choosing the elect based only on his sovereign will to do so, and not based on anything about them.
You have not come to grips with this NT revelation of truth.
because He loved them. You do teach that a person cannot repent and believe at that is the reason why people receive the Holy Spirit and are capable of obeying Him, correct? So the condemned have never been given that opportunity
God does not owe them an opportunity. On what basis do they claim the right to an opportunity?
Your argument is based on the premise that God owes his enemies (Ro 5:10). He does not owe his enemies anything, including opportunities.
If he freely chooses to give to some of his enemies, the others have no claim against God of being unjust, because he owes them nothing.

God's justification of the this 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, including an "opportunity."
You have no just cause against me for giving you what I owe you, nothing.

This is Court and Judgment.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

BNR32FAN

He’s a Way of life
Site Supporter
Aug 11, 2017
25,584
8,305
Dallas
✟1,065,119.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married

Why do you think God endured with much patience the vessels of wrath? What purpose did that serve?

Again you’re saying that my position implies that God owed them something and have already completely forgotten that it’s not a matter of what is owed it’s a matter of God loving them. But of coarse I know that you don’t believe that God loved the world. You can’t because your theology doesn’t allow for it. John 3:16 tells us exactly why God sent Jesus into the world, not because He owed them anything but because He loved them. That’s precisely why He sent Jesus into the world. You keep forgetting that important fact.
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
28,236
7,256
North Carolina
✟333,029.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Why do you think God endured with much patience the vessels of wrath? What purpose did that serve?
The vessels of wrath are the condemned.

Ro 9:23 answers that question.
Again you’re saying that my position implies that God owed them something and have already completely forgotten that it’s not a matter of what is owed it’s a matter of God loving them.
Or have you forgotten that your point being addressed is "the condemned have never been given that opportunity."
 
Upvote 0

BNR32FAN

He’s a Way of life
Site Supporter
Aug 11, 2017
25,584
8,305
Dallas
✟1,065,119.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The vessels of wrath are the condemned.

Ro 9:23 answers that question.
No that doesn’t answer the question. The question was what purpose did having patience with the vessels of wrath serve. He demonstrated His wrath and made His power known to the vessels of mercy by using the vessels of wrath but that’s not why He showed patience towards them.

This is why He was patient with them.

“The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.”
‭‭2 Peter‬ ‭3‬:‭9‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

This is why they were condemned as vessels of destruction.

“Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance? But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭2‬:‭4‬-‭5‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
28,236
7,256
North Carolina
✟333,029.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Why do you think God endured with much patience the vessels of wrath? What purpose did that serve?
To put it in a more "positive" way, it serves to demonstrate and justify God's judgment of, and to silence their objections to, his condemnation of them.
I have never mentioned that fact. But to address that fact:

No one can come to Jesus unless the Father has enabled them (Jn 6:65),
all those the Father gives to Jesus do come, and he turns none of them away (Jn 6:37),
he loses none of all that the Father has given him (Jn 6:39),
none (including themselves) can snatch them from his hand (Jn 10:37).

How does that fit in?
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
28,236
7,256
North Carolina
✟333,029.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
This is why he had patience with the vessels of wrath: to demonstrate and justify his judgment of, and to silence their objections to, his just condemnation of them.
 
Upvote 0

BNR32FAN

He’s a Way of life
Site Supporter
Aug 11, 2017
25,584
8,305
Dallas
✟1,065,119.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Spoken before Christ’s sacrifice which He said “when I am lifted up I will draw all men to myself”.

And the one who COMES (used only in the present and imperfect tense) to Me I will never cast out. Not if anyone ever came to Me.

You ALWAYS misquote John 6:39 no matter how many times I correct you.

IT IS THE FATHER’S WILL (desire) that I lose none. Doesn’t say that He will lose none it says that The Father desires that He lose none. You always omit that first part when you quote that verse. It’s also the Father’s will or desire that all men are saved and come to the full knowledge of truth. Does that mean it is destined to happen? No it isn’t because the scriptures tell us that not all will be saved. Furthermore the scriptures tell us repeatedly that those who are saved who are in Christ will fall away. You just ignore those verses.

And no one can snatch them from His hand is referring to a third party it doesn’t imply that God cannot cast them away nor does it imply that the individual cannot turn away from God. If I say no one can snatch this rabbit from my hand that doesn’t mean that I said I can’t throw the rabbit from my hand and it doesn’t mean that I said the rabbit can’t jump from my hand. It means that no THIRD PARTY can take the rabbit from my hand. I’ve explained all of these before.
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
14,944
7,862
50
The Wild West
✟720,574.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate

Our friend @Xeno.of.athens was simply stating what the Roman Catholic Church believes.

However, I would argue that considering that the SDA also has a teaching magisterium in the writings of Ellen White which are officially regarded as inspired prophecy (and which in volume greatly exceed the two, and indeed there are only two*, infallible dogmatic definitions of the faith made by the Popes of the Roman Church since Papal Infallibility was made a dogma at the First Vatican Council), and considering for that matter that every denomination has its own particular distinctives, not only do I think the suggestion that Catholics not quote their internal documents in General Theology to be unfair to them, especially since Roman Catholics are among the many denominations which reject Sola Scriptura (which also include not just Orthodox churches, but Protestants and Restorationist churches, including high church Anglicans of the Anglo-Catholic school, Quakers, certain Pentecostals, and others, and indeed the historic Waldensians and Moravians did not preach Sola Scriptura, and furthermore the Lutheran, Anglican, Methodist and historic Calvinist interpretations of Sola Scriptura are very different from how others define it, in that supplemental material such as Patristic writings, the creeds, the liturgical texts and hymns, and theological works such as Calvin’s Institutes, and Barth’s Church Dogmatics, are extremely important. They are also particularly relevant to this discussion, which concerns the Reformed doctrine of Limited Atonement, along with other works of Reformed systematic theology.*

But beyond that, I would argue that discussions in General Theology are enriched by the quotation of material such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Lutheran Book of Concord, the Anglican Book of Common Prayer, or indeed the writings of Ellen G. White, which personally I wish you would quote more, as I would find that extremely edifying, and as I have said, I give her a great deal of credit for ensuring that the SDA church embraced the Doctrine of the Trinity.

*I myself personally prefer Calvin’s Institutes, because he was clearly trying to follow the example of the Early Church and the consensus patrum, a phrase of Calvinist origin, even if some of the conclusions he drew, for example, concerning iconography, are erroneous.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2018
14,256
6,347
69
Pennsylvania
✟930,935.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
I've addressed every last one of them at one time or another, and don't care to take the time to do it again. They don't refute my theology, anymore than 1 Timothy 2:4 does.

And since you are misrepresenting what I said, again, I don't care to argue with you anymore. As many times before, I have tried to learn not to get into your weeds.
 
Reactions: Clare73
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2018
14,256
6,347
69
Pennsylvania
✟930,935.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
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.
Ha! You sound like me there!
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
28,236
7,256
North Carolina
✟333,029.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Spoken before Christ’s sacrifice which He said “when I am lifted up I will draw all men to myself”.
The words "all" men, like the words whole "world," can be used in two ways:
1) all/everyone without exception (everyone),
2) all/everyone without distinction (Gentiles as well as Jews).
And the one who COMES (used only in the present and imperfect tense) to Me I will never cast out. Not if anyone ever came to Me
Doesn't change what I presented.
You ALWAYS misquote John 6:39 no matter how many times I correct you.
Jn 6:39: ". . . I shall lose none of all that he has given me, . . ."
IT IS THE FATHER’S WILL (desire) that I lose none. Doesn’t say that He will lose none it says that The Father desires that He lose none.
Convenient. . .Jn 6:39 says no such thing, it states:

"It is the Father's will (thelema) that I lose none," not the Father's desire (thelo or boulomai).

When did the Father's "will" become simply "desire"?

So who misquotes Jn 6:39?
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Mark Quayle
Upvote 0

BNR32FAN

He’s a Way of life
Site Supporter
Aug 11, 2017
25,584
8,305
Dallas
✟1,065,119.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
When did The Father’s will become simply desire? You know how to use a lexicon I’ve seen you quote from them several times. Look up the word translated to “will” in John 6:39 then look up the word translated to “will” in 1 Timothy 2:4 and read the definition. I’m inclined to think that you already have which is why your not presenting to support your argument.
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
28,236
7,256
North Carolina
✟333,029.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
When did The Father’s will become simply desire? You know how to use a lexicon
Don't have a lexicon. . .don't use a lexicon.
In the Greek, 1 Tim 2:4 is thelo (to wish), not thelema (to will) as in Jn 6:39.

This isn't about 1 Tim 2:4, this is about:
No one can come to Jesus unless the Father has enabled them (Jn 6:65),
all those the Father gives to Jesus do come, and Jesus turns none of them away (Jn 6:37),
. . .Jesus loses none of all that the Father has given him. . . (Jn 6:39)

And I don't do weeds. . .
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Mark Quayle
Upvote 0

Xeno.of.athens

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.
May 18, 2022
7,060
2,200
Perth
✟190,476.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
That is an interesting opinion BobRyan, but it is not part of the rules for contributing to Theology or General-Theology, and that being so it seems to me that any contribution that is salient is worth posting.

There is something else, almost no one argues their theology from scripture alone because scripture alone is too obscure to prove a particular theological opinion. From the scriptures one may point to evidence that is consistent with a doctrine, and one may present an interpretation that supports a specific doctrine, but fining a verse or passage that indisputably proves some doctrine is a difficult task. So, I am content to use the holy scriptures for the explanation of doctrines that are taught by the Catholic Church and to rely on the Catholic Church's holy Tradition as a source for both example and teaching.

When I want a concise statement of doctrine then it is more fruitful to quote from the councils and creeds of the Church than it is to gather together verses from scripture and present them as 'proofs' for some concise statement that I have made.

As saint Paul wrote to saint Timothy
2 Timothy 3:
14 It is for thee to hold fast by the doctrine handed on to thee, the charge committed to thee; thou knowest well, from whom that tradition came;​
15 thou canst remember the holy learning✻ thou hast been taught from childhood upwards. This will train thee up for salvation, through the faith which rests in Christ Jesus.​
‘Holy learning’, including, doubtless, the Old Testament scriptures, but not necessarily confined to them.
16 Everything in the scripture has been divinely inspired, and has its uses; to instruct us, to expose our errors, to correct our faults, to educate us in holy living;​
17 so God’s servant will become a master of his craft, and each noble task that comes will find him ready for it.​
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2018
14,256
6,347
69
Pennsylvania
✟930,935.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Completely agreed.

Yet, he is also beyond our comprehension, to the degree that we should at least not trust our own understanding to define him. All of our descriptions, if not direct quotes from His Word concerning Himself, fall short of facts, and our mental concepts do not do him justice. It is not that he can't be grasped, (and clung to for dear life!), but that there is always more to learn about ANY aspect of him.

BUT! It is for him that our hearts were made! Even while our minds are not fully awake.
 
Reactions: zoidar
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2018
14,256
6,347
69
Pennsylvania
✟930,935.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
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?
How so? Who will be able to stand before God while they are 'falling to pieces'? When they realize their mistake, they won't be able to blame him.

But read what I said earlier, again. It is YOU who are coming up with this use of my claim that God caused that there be sin. It is YOUR self-deterministic worldview that lowers God to subjecting him to principles to which you are naturally subjected. YOU think the compelling logic of causation by God (first cause) is defeated by YOUR self-determinism. You naturally look for a way to claim that "responsible" means "to blame" if it is responsible for bad things.

NOTE PLEASE: Sin is against God. God cannot be against God. Therefore, if he does something, it is not sin. YOU draw from that, that he therefore cannot in any way be responsible for the fact that there is sin. Yet you yourself have said things to the effect that God uses sin for Good. Thus, the fact of sin is TO GOD'S CREDIT. NOT BLAME! Reformed theology, and Calvinism, does not blame God for anything.
 
Reactions: Clare73
Upvote 0

BNR32FAN

He’s a Way of life
Site Supporter
Aug 11, 2017
25,584
8,305
Dallas
✟1,065,119.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
But read what I said earlier, again. It is YOU who are coming up with this use of my claim that God caused that there be sin.
I never said that. I never said anything about God being responsible for their sin. I said that in your theology God is responsible for their inability to repent and believe. That is what you preach isn’t it? That no one can repent and believe unless The Father has enabled them?
 
Upvote 0

BNR32FAN

He’s a Way of life
Site Supporter
Aug 11, 2017
25,584
8,305
Dallas
✟1,065,119.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Again I never said anything about God being responsible for sin. In all my posts about sin it has always been man’s own fault that he sinned. But sin is not the determining factor for salvation, repentance is. Everyone has sinned but people are condemned because they didn’t repent and believe. In your theology are the condemned even capable of repentance?
 
Upvote 0