Limited Atonement

[Cal]

Rubbish...............Please show where you are being picked on!! Pushed into a corner for the purpose of qualifying your position maybe,but picked on? I dont think so!!! You have made claims but have not as yet qualified your position!!! You havent actually shown yet why you believe what you do so how can anyone be picking on you?
Actually its the opposite.YOU have infact attacked the calvinist position by your own words but have not shown how you come to believe what you do.

No one here wants to attack any one,but when someone makes comments which refutes the beliefs of another then surely that person is obliged to show why they believe the position they are refuting is in error?

the thread has not went off topic IMO.

The OP originally posted : "LIMITED ATONEMENT.............................................I know that this is the belief that Jesus only died for the elect, but that is about all I know. I find it hard to believe this but I am still looking into it. Could anyone please explain this to me and give me scriptural backup."
As far as i can see every post has been within the context of the OP's and subsequent questions from other posters.

If you truly believe our position is in error then dont you feel as you have entered the discourse that you have an obligation to show us how and why you believe limited atonement is wrong?

I agree completely, Buttermilk it seem's like you are threatening to use your authority inapproprriately because you can not answer or defend your position from Scripture. This has got to be against the rules of this forum and should be reported by the "real" moderator for this thread.

 

[oworm]

littleapologist vbmenu_register("postmenu_7845771", true);

17

Regular Member
Blessings: 489
Reputation: 198
Posts: 487


Limited Atonement

I know that this is the belief that Jesus only died for the elect, but that is about all I know. I find it hard to believe this but I am still looking into it. Could anyone please explain this to me and give me scriptural backup.
Thanks!

 

[Cal]

Buttermilk,

Yes let's start over and thank you for the e-mail and you're willingness to discuss this matter in your search for the truth.

As discussed in my reply to your e-mail, there are hundreds of verses where God speaks about specifically loving and predestinating certain people to salvation and hating certain people to their eternal damnation. There are so many verses that your entire denomination and at one time almost all of Scotland believed in limited atonement.

You said that is not the God of the bible. You said God loved everyone and wanted to save all unconditionally.

You asked how we would "feel" if God did not elect a member of our family. As if we could bring God and His revealed truths to the judgment bar of our "feelings."

How do you think Jacob, Rebekah and Isaac felt when they realized God hated Esau and had not elected him to salvation?

ROM 9:13 Just as it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."


ROM 9:14 ¶ What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there?

Well isn't that what you are saying? This is unfair and unjust with God!

But the Holy Spirit say's:

"May it never be!"

For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth." So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. ROM 9:15-18.

But, You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?"

And I will answer back, On the contrary, who are you, O woman, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it?

You see, when God did not elect Esau to salvation Jacob, Rebekah and Isaac did not shake their fists at God or tell Him how "they felt about it." As a sinner and rebel Esau was simply getting what he deserved and God's justice on him was fair and just.

What Jacob, Rebekah and Isaac were asking themselves though was why God was having mercy on them!?!

 

[Gabriel]

To all involved:

You simply cannot expect to post in a thread, disagree, not provide support for your disagreement and then expect that you would not be responded to directly.

 

[oworm]

As a sinner and rebel Esau was simply getting what he deserved and God's justice on him was fair and just.
What Jacob, Rebekah and Isaac were asking themselves though was why God was having mercy on them!?!

So the question then should be "Why does God save anyone?" Not "why doesn't God save everyone?"

 

[Foundthelight]

So the question then should be "Why does God save anyone?" Not "why doesn't God save everyone?"

Exactly. God chooses for His greater Glory. This is true of everything God does.

He chose to harden Pharaoh's heart so as to bring glory on Himself by freeing Isreal.

He chooses some for salvation for the same reason. His Glory. Who are we to question His reasons?

Job 36:22 Behold, God exalteth by his power: who teacheth like him?

Job 36:23 Who hath enjoined him his way? or who can say, Thou hast wrought iniquity?

 

[tigersnare]

Great Posts everyone!!

And when talking about LA, remeber we're not talking about "fairness"here, we're talking about mercy.

You want fair God to be fair? Fair is we all burn....

Mercy is God having a redemptive plan at all. Who are we to say he isn't saving enough?

 

[Gabriel]

Great Posts everyone!!

And when talking about LA, remeber we're not talking about "fairness"here, we're talking about mercy.

You want fair God to be fair? Fair is we all burn....

Mercy is God having a redemptive plan at all. Who are we to say he isn't saving enough?

When the issue of fairness comes into play people tend to look at it with the wrong definition. The world has come to believe that fair means "what is a good for all involved" I have a simple way of making people see the truth of the word fair. Timothy Mc Veigh killed alot of people when he bombed the federal building in Oklahoma City. As a criminal he was tried, sentenced and executed. He was punished for what he did. Is that fair? Yes. But, was it good for him? No. It was most certainly bad for him, yet it was just and fair. The same goes for the reprobate. We all fall short (sin), the wages of sin is death. So if we ALL fall short and the payment for sin is death, what is fair for all of us? Death. But God in His love and mercy saves some of us. Fair is sometimes bad. I'll rejoice in mercy and give up my claim to fairness.

 

[rnmomof7]

I like to say if God was fair , we would all be in hell.

 

[Knight]

I recently heard a "Renewing Your Mind" broadcast about the doctrine of Limited Atonement. (Available for online listening at www.ligonier.org Just go to the past broadcasts.)

I favor R. C. Sprouls position. The term is better defined as Particular Redemption. It's more exact. Of course, this would render TULIP into TURIP.

 

[Wilfred of Ivanhoe]

So the question then should be "Why does God save anyone?" Not "why doesn't God save everyone?"

Thump!! (That is the sound of your arrow hitting its mark right in the center)

I believe everyone else has expounded upon this well. Allow me to toss in my two cents.

Romans 3:5 But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man)

I think everyone here will agree that we are all sinners and have fallen short of the glory of God. As the above verse states, God is righteous to take vengence on those who have disobeyed his law. If God were fair, there would have been no saviour and we would all be destined for enternal wrath. Praise God that he did give us a saviour!!!!!

So why does God regenerate the heart of one man, and leave the next in his state?

Ephesians 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

According to the good pleasure of God's will!!! It was stated elsewhere that he has elected his sheep to give himself glory! Unfortunately, I think that we too often become man centered instead of God centered. It glories man to think that God is sitting on pins and needles hoping that John Doe makes the decision to follow Christ. It gloires man to say," I choose Jesus! Hooray for my free will." But it glories God when he takes a sinful wretch like me and saves me. If glories him when I say "Lord, have mercy on me, a sinner!"

 

[oworm]

Thump!! (That is the sound of your arrow hitting its mark right in the center)

THUMP!!! That was the sound of your arrow splitting mine

I think that we too often become man centered instead of God centered.

 

[Wilfred of Ivanhoe]

THUMP!!! That was the sound of your arrow splitting mine

LOL!

 

[theseed]

I recently heard a "Renewing Your Mind" broadcast about the doctrine of Limited Atonement. (Available for online listening at www.ligonier.org Just go to the past broadcasts.)

I favor R. C. Sprouls position. The term is better defined as Particular Redemption. It's more exact. Of course, this would render TULIP into TURIP.

Yeah, some times I think John Calvin just likes flowers

 

[Bulldog]

I personally think a better term would be definite atonement. Christ's death definitly accomplished the salvation of the elect, instead of just creating the potential.

 

[theseed]

I personally think a better term would be definite atonement. Christ's death definitly accomplished the salvation of the elect, instead of just creating the potential.

Well, all men and women will be asked what they did with the only Begotten of the Father. God holds all responsible, not just the elect, to have faith in Christ.

And God stops no one from comming to him, so all men and women are without excuse.

With that said, Christ blood has to have the potential to be applied to the sins of the whole world. God is glorified in not having the full potential of the atonement fullfilled because it is conditioned by faith. And God gets glorified by faith, which requires one to humble himself and admit is sin, and admit that only Christ is Lord and Savior.

So, we are warned against asking about fatalism and blaming God.
Romans 9
19 (37) You will say to me then, "(38) Why does He still find fault? For (39) who resists His will?"
20 On the contrary, who are you, (40) O man, who (41) answers back to God? (42) The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it?

 

[seawolf_48]

To bulldog

Some theologians call it "particular atonement". But I like limited, it makes the Arminians hair stand up. Atonement is limited to God choise, and not everyone. John 3:16 says "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that everyone who believes should not perish but have eternal life." Everyone who believes are the elect. Not whosoever, anyone anywhere anytime. The Good Shepard lays down His life for His sheep, not the goats. If Christ died for all then all would be saved. If Christ died for all and many are lost, then we can loose our salvation also. Heb 9:28 "Christ was offered to bear the sins of many", not all.

Also Christ is our propitiation, Rom 3:25; Heb 2:17; 1Joh 2:2, 4:10. What is the propitiation? A full expiation of our sins, full pardon from wrath and now in good standing with God the Father. This is only the Elect. But not for our alone but also for the whole world. Meaning the elect in all countries thru all time, and not every person that ever lived. They are not pardoned, but we are, praise God!

 

[theseed]

Yes, in John 3.16, we see the subjuctive "should" it referes to a verb conjugation that implies a contigency. Another subjuctive is "might", and "may" and "necessaarily in the rightcontext"

So, God gave his Son so that whoever might believe, would not perish. However, not all believe.

Subjunctive mood (Gram.), that form of a verb which express the action or state not as a fact, but only as a conception of the mind still contingent and dependent. It is commonly subjoined, or added as subordinate, to some other verb, and in English is often connected with it by if, that, though, lest, unless, except, until, etc., as in the following sentence: ``If there were no honey, they [bees] would have no object in visiting the flower.'' --Lubbock. In some languages, as in Latin and Greek, the subjunctive is often independent of any other verb, being used in wishes, commands, exhortations, etc.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

 

[jbarcher]

But I like limited, it makes the Arminians hair stand up

Lol!

---

Er, one thing I'd like to bring up...people mentioned something about it being just for all of us to go to hell. I'm speaking of--"I like to say if God was fair , we would all be in hell." Well, there's an antitheistic argument that makes the case that 'just' and 'merciful' cannot go together. Stepping away from the position that "when we talk about the divine, it all ends in paradox, so we might as well give up", I'd like to point something out about this argument.

I don't think it scratches Christianity. Consider this:

1. If God maintained His holiness, then we would all go to hell, as punishment for our sins.
2. Christ is the atonement for our sins.
3. Therefore, God is both just and merciful.

The key idea is, there is more than one way to be just. And because of Christ, God is both just (the price paid), and merciful (God had no obligation to send Christ, before Genesis 3:15, that is ).

But don't toss out that antitheistic argument yet. It may be useful when dealing with other religions.

---

Now, back to the topic. I really need to set aside some time about the L...as it is, I think, the main thing preventing me from going all out Calvinist... Definite atonement....hm...

 

[Knight]

Yeah, some times I think John Calvin just likes flowers

IIRC, Calvin did not invent the acronym. It was developed by others after Calvin in response to Arminiasm.

Check the broadcast I mentioned. I think that point is made there.