Limited vs unlimited atonement?

MDC

Well-Known Member
Jan 19, 2017
1,127
511
48
Texas
✟59,701.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
You say that 5-point Calvinism is the gospel and anything other than that is not the gospel. You are wrong.

If I am illogical in my view of the atonement - show me where I am illogical.

Show me where the scriptures tell us that a person for whom Christ died 2000 years ago can go for 99 years until his deathbed conversion existing as a "child of wrath - even as the rest" and it is illogical to say that the unjustifed can not possibly go for eternity in that same condtion.

Show me either from scripture or logic that the premise on which limited atonement is founded is scriptural or at least logical.

If you have ever done it here, I have yet to notice it.

All I have seen is scriptures which bear on the other 4 points put forth - along with the usual comments about Christ spilling His blood for no reason and other such Calvinist cliches.

Why don't you (in a simple and straight forward manner with no misrepresentation of what I believe or have done in my life or any slander of me) - give me a scripture or two which teach limited atonement and then refute my logic concerning the "children of wrath" both elect and otherwise?

That should be a simple task for you if you have thought it all through enough to be so dug in about your beliefs.

Let's start over again right there shall we?

If you can't or won't then we have nothing more to talk about. Your choice - make your choice in the next post please.

Calling a troll a troll is not not necessarily mean spirited - any more than calling a Pharasee a viper is mean spirited.

I have followed him or her in this forum for some time. I have debated him or her as well - contrary to your saying that I am ashamed to take non-Reformed to task.

That person denies the incarnation and the atoning shedding of Christ's blood for salvation. He or she is not a believer Calvinist, Arminian or otherwise. He or she is a Christian Forums troll and many others will vouch for that.
No you are wrong and is why I say you espouse compromise and confusion. The doctrinal truths that make up so called Calvinism is the gospel. Which you being educated in these teachings should know. And I know you know the scriptures that justify particular "limited" atonement for the elect. You just find them offensive... or feel sorry for the pelagians and arminians that find it offensive? So quit asking for something from me that you are already prepared to reprove with your Arminian logic. Can you refute election from scripture?? So what makes you think logically you can refute the effectual particular "limited" atoning work of Christ for His elect? And quit crying about me slandering you. I have done no such thing
 
Upvote 0

JLB777

Newbie
Supporter
Jun 18, 2012
5,905
1,258
✟403,811.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
lol.

Are you really suggesting that there is ANY OTHER verse that somehow magically changes these very plain words of Jesus??? Seriously???

The reason Jesus said what He did about those who receive eternal life will never perish is because taught that eternal life is a gift of God in Rom 6:23 and that the gifts of God are irrevocable in Rom 11:29.

That's why those who receive that specific gift will never perish.

In fact, that's exactly what eternal life means. Never to perish.

So, where is this magical verse that somehow changes the meaning of John 10:28?


LOL, now that's funny.

Neither Romans 6:23 nor Romans 11:29 say what you claim.

I guess if you took part of Romans 6:23 and part of Romans 11;29, and ignored the rest of what each scripture says, as well as ignore what the context of Romans 6 and Romans 11 says, then I suppose you could make the scripture say just about anything.


For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 6:23

For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. Romans 11:29


Here is what you expect us to believe:

For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.


Those who build doctrine around this kind of "interpretation" are known to be heretics and leaders of cult movements.


Those who are "in Christ Jesus" have eternal life.

Those who are "in Christ Jesus", then removed from Christ Jesus, no longer have eternal life.


Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit He prunes, that it may bear more fruit. John 15:2


If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned. John 15:6


Those who are in Christ Jesus, but do not remain in Christ Jesus, are thrown into the fire and burned.


Please explain how someone who does not remain in Christ, somehow still has eternal life?



JLB
 
Upvote 0

sdowney717

Newbie
Apr 20, 2013
8,712
2,021
✟102,588.00
Faith
Christian
LOL, now that's funny.

Neither Romans 6:23 nor Romans 11:29 say what you claim.

I guess if you took part of Romans 6:23 and part of Romans 11;29, and ignored the rest of what each scripture says, as well as ignore what the context of Romans 6 and Romans 11 says, then I suppose you could make the scripture say just about anything.


For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 6:23

For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. Romans 11:29


Here is what you expect us to believe:

For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.


Those who build doctrine around this kind of "interpretation" are known to be heretics and leaders of cult movements.


Those who are "in Christ Jesus" have eternal life.

Those who are "in Christ Jesus", then removed from Christ Jesus, no longer have eternal life.


Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit He prunes, that it may bear more fruit. John 15:2


If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned. John 15:6


Those who are in Christ Jesus, but do not remain in Christ Jesus, are thrown into the fire and burned.


Please explain how someone who does not remain in Christ, somehow still has eternal life?



JLB
That is right they don't have eternal life, if they do not abide in the True Vine.
Who really is Jesus Christ and what did Christ do? Well one thing is He made everything that exists, including all mankind. Since the life Christ gives is eternal and He says they never perish, so that must be a truthism, well I take the John 15 verses as Christ referring to Himself as the Creator. So if they do not abide in God (Christ), then they don't have eternal life.

6 If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned.

But to not abide in Christ and to be cast off the True Vine does not mean they once did abide in Christ. For someone to be cast off as a dead branch speaks to them not having any life in Christ, so yes Christ created all men as their Creator. But if they have no home in the True Vine they are going to be denied life with God in heaven since they offend God and are lawless.

Study the parable of the wheat and the tares to see this.
Matthew 13:41
The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness,
 
Upvote 0

Marvin Knox

Senior Veteran
May 9, 2014
4,291
1,453
✟84,588.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
No you are wrong and is why I say you espouse compromise and confusion. The doctrinal truths that make up so called Calvinism is the gospel. Which you being educated in these teachings should know.
The gospel message does not necessarily have to tell the world about the total inability of men to understand and respond etc.

It could, of course, tell them of their inability to save themselves by good works. Thus the absolute need for the work of Christ would be properly emphasized.

But total depravity as usually taught by Calvinists is not that doctrine and is not necessary or even desirable to be preached initially even though it is a true doctrine.

Likewise the doctrine of election (although true) has no part in a simple presentation to the world of the gospel and a call to repentance.

Likewise the doctrine of the irresistible inward call of God (although a true doctrine) has no part in a simple call to repent and believe on Christ for one's salvation.

Eternal security is a doctrine which can be presented effectively along with the initial call to believe and be saved.

But limited atonement has no place whatsoever in the presentation of the gospel to the world and in fact is not sound doctrine at all even for believers who are ready for solid meat.
And I know you know the scriptures that justify particular "limited" atonement for the elect. You just find them offensive... or feel sorry for the pelagians and arminians that find it offensive?
I know of no such scriptures and that is why I challenge you to present them for me.

When you and others have attempted to do so in the past you have always lapsed into arguing the sciptures which support the other 4 poiints but not limited atonement. That's because that particular point is not scriptural. If it were you could easily point to the scriptures which support it.
So quit asking for something from me that you are already prepared to reprove with your Arminian logic.
I am not asking for the chance to reprove the scriptures you provide - if you would only do so. I would let the scriptures or lack thereof speak for themselves.

The logic concerning the fact that one can be a child of wrath even after blood was shed for his sins is a different mode of argument entirely and I have yet to see you refute it or even try to.
Can you refute election from scripture?? So what makes you think logically you can refute the effectual particular "limited" atoning work of Christ for His elect?
I cannot and would not even try to refute election because it is a scripture based doctrine..

I cannot and would not even try to refute the effectual atoning work of Christ for His elect.

However I would point out that that work according to Ephesians 2:1-3 does not, in and of itself, remove an elect person from the wrath of God. Neither would it for the non elect who could obviously just as easily go into eternity as children of wrath as you or I could go most of a lifetime in that condition.

I would be happy with just one scripture which speaks to limited atonement if you could provide it. Accepting that challenge should be easy if there is one.

Any argument against my logic concerning the Ephesians passage would fall flat IMO as I have pretty much seen them all exhausted over the years.

Once more for the record -- I subscribe to all of the 4 points of so called Calvinism but limited atonement - just as did John Calvin, one of my favorite theologians.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

St_Worm2

Simul Justus et Peccator
Supporter
Jan 28, 2002
27,246
45,333
67
✟2,915,768.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
<staff edit>

Hi Em, if sins in the OT could have been remitted/atoned for by repentance alone, and forgiveness was available from God simply for the asking, why did God command (what ended up being) the sacrifice of millions of animals instead :scratch:

Likewise, why would God send His Son here to die that horrible death on the Cross if the remission of our sins could be had by repenting of them, and forgiveness and reconciliation were both ours simply for the asking :scratch:

And if what you say is true, why does the Bible tell us plainly that the shedding of blood is REQUIRED for the atonement/remission/forgiveness of sins, both in the OT and NT? For instance:

Leviticus 17
11 The life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement.

Matthew 26
27 He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you.
28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins"

Thanks!

In Christ,
David


"Without the shedding of blood,
there is no forgiveness"

Hebrews 9:22
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Winner
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

FreeGrace2

Senior Veteran
Nov 15, 2012
20,401
1,703
USA
✟184,557.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
You mean like how the Arminians present it correct Marvin? Jesus loves you and died for you.. God is wooing you to make a decision for Christ but won't violate your free will.. Kinda like that rt?
To be clear, I'm no Arminian, but it's more like this:
For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people. Titus 2:11

Is there a problem with that?

Arminians present a perversion of the gospel all the time in a similar way as I just mentioned
Maybe the problem is with this, then:
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16
 
Upvote 0

JLB777

Newbie
Supporter
Jun 18, 2012
5,905
1,258
✟403,811.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
That is right they don't have eternal life, if they do not abide in the True Vine.
Who really is Jesus Christ and what did Christ do? Well one thing is He made everything that exists, including all mankind. Since the life Christ gives is eternal and He says they never perish, so that must be a truthism, well I take the John 15 verses as Christ referring to Himself as the Creator. So if they do not abide in God (Christ), then they don't have eternal life.

6 If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned.

But to not abide in Christ and to be cast off the True Vine does not mean they once did abide in Christ. For someone to be cast off as a dead branch speaks to them not having any life in Christ, so yes Christ created all men as their Creator. But if they have no home in the True Vine they are going to be denied life with God in heaven since they offend God and are lawless.

Study the parable of the wheat and the tares to see this.
Matthew 13:41
The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness,


So a branch that is connected to a vine, isn't really connected to the vine?

Sorry, brother, that makes no sense.


Then you say study the parable of the wheat and tares, as if that explains your 'point" about the branches that are in Him, but do not remain in Him.

Tares were never wheat, and they were never going to be wheat, which is a completely different teaching.

People who are "in Christ", come to be "in Christ", because they believe.

Just like the plant that spouted and grew up for a while, but never produced fruit, because they stopped believing.

13 But the ones on the rock are those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, who believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away. Luke 8:13


These hear the word and receive it with joy, which is the joy of salvation, but after a while they no longer believed and returned to the unbelieving lifestyle they once knew.


  • Believe = Saved
  • Believe for a while = Saved for a while

Do you understand that someone who believes for a while, then no longer believes, is no longer a believer?



JLB
 
Upvote 0

FreeGrace2

Senior Veteran
Nov 15, 2012
20,401
1,703
USA
✟184,557.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
I said this:
"To my point then, those not "internally called" have the excuse that they weren't called. Same problem with limited atonement and refored election. It creates an excuse for those who end up in hell."
Would you also say that those who were not fortunate enough to have someone pray to God for their salvation (and have God answer that prayer by sending an evangelist and then moving on their heart by His Holy Spirit) have an excuse for not believeing on the Lord for salvation?
No, I would not. The Bible says that God has revealed Himself to everyone through creation, revealing His eternal power and divine nature, so that no one has any excuse for not glorifying Him as God and being thankful to Him. Rom 1:19,20

btw, I believe John 6:45 is directly related to Rom 1:19,20.
"It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me."

Not everyone pays any attention to creation. Even so-called scientists who study creation. And the Bible calls them fools. Psa 14:1-3, 53:1-3.

I believe that Cornelius is a great example of one Gentiles who did pay attention, and recognized God's eternal power and divine nature, and was thankful to Him, as Acts 10 shows. The result was that God sent him more information.

Would you say that those who were not fortunate enough to have Jesus visit them in the way that He did Saul of Tarsus also have an excuse before God when they find that they will be justly punished for their many sins?
Nope. See above. No one has any excuse.

We are all, as sinners, worthy of eternal punishment for our sins are we not?
Absolutely true.

It was our personal choice, whether "elect" or otherwise, to commit those sins was it not?
Correct.

How is it an excuse for our sins if God has mercy on those whom He choses to have mercy on and passes others by?
The point is about being chosen. All are sinners, as you correctly note. Yet, if God didn't choose some, based on His own personal reasons, that in itself creates an excuse for those not chosen.

However, if Titus 2:11 is true (and it is), then salvation has been made available to all people. So no one has any excuse for not receiving the free gift of eternal lfie.

People could could gripe and moan all they want (I'd do the same thing). But we wouldn''t be forwarding a legitimate excuse IMO.
Sure there would. If you ended up in a bad place only because you weren't chosen, and others who were as equally bad (;)) as you were chosen for a really good place, wouldn't it be reasonable to think it wasn't really your fault for ending up where you did, since others equally as bad as you didn't end up there.

None of which was due to anything on their part?
 
Upvote 0

FreeGrace2

Senior Veteran
Nov 15, 2012
20,401
1,703
USA
✟184,557.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
I said this:
"Then go ahead and define and explain what it is, if you know."
I'm surprised someone who understands like you doesn't know.
Are you serious? Do you really think I don't know? My question was obvious. I want to know what you think it is and means.

All you have to do is look up the meaning of atonement. Tell you what FG2, I'll look it up for you from Strong's.

to expiate or condone, to placate or cancel:—appease, make (an atonement, cleanse, disannul, forgive, be merciful, pacify, pardon, purge (away), put off, (make) reconcile(-liation).

Why look at that, there's your 'appeasement'. And let's see, we have forgive, be merciful, pacify, cleanse, disannul, pardon, purge, and reconciliation. Atonement covers a lot of things. What did you think atonement was?
Since atonement never saved anyone, it certainly isn't forgive, pardon, purge.

That leaves appease, be merciful, reconcile. 1 John 2:2 uses a Greek word that means 'atonement'. He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.


Rom 11:32 - For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

2 Cor 5:19 - that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation.

So, there you have it. Scripture for each of the 3 words that explain what 'atonement' means.

You're welcome. :)

What do we have which relates to all those things? Do you know? Let me help you out.

WE HAVE REPENTANCE FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS! No cross, no physical blood, no Passover lamb, no sacrifice, no murder, and certainly, no abomination to God.
No we don't. No one was ever saved by atonement. Neither by the annual reminder of sins nor by His own death on a cross.

Your ridiculous claim here is totally unbiblical. And we know that you have to reject most of the Bible to come up with such nonsense.

Heb 10:3-4
3 But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, 4 because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

Again, you do not know the Bible.
Ha. You have rejected most of the Bible in order to defend your blasphemous views.

It says those who do not keep the commandments are liars.
Yes, that is true.

The Bible also says that Jesus Christ is the Lamb of God, whose sacrifice reconciled the world to God through Him, which you have to reject because it refutes your nonsense.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

FreeGrace2

Senior Veteran
Nov 15, 2012
20,401
1,703
USA
✟184,557.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
I said this:
"The reason Jesus said what He did about those who receive eternal life will never perish is because taught that eternal life is a gift of God in Rom 6:23 and that the gifts of God are irrevocable in Rom 11:29.

That's why those who receive that specific gift will never perish.

In fact, that's exactly what eternal life means. Never to perish.

So, where is this magical verse that somehow changes the meaning of John 10:28?"
LOL, now that's funny.
So, you find Scripture funny? That's quite odd.

Neither Romans 6:23 nor Romans 11:29 say what you claim.
Your claim is without merit. Of course it does. But some just don't want to face the reality of it. Your agenda gets in the way every time.

For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 6:23

For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. Romans 11:29

Here is what you expect us to believe:

For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.
This child-like drawing through words is meaningless. Eternal life IS a gift of God, whether I always include every word or not. To suggest or claim otherwise is ridiculous.

Those who are "in Christ Jesus" have eternal life.
I've never suggested otherwise. In fact, I've ALWAYS argued that only those who believe are IN CHRIST, and sealed IN HIM.

But it's your side that cannot defend it's unbiblical claim that one who HAS eternal life can lose it, or that one sealed IN HIM can become unsealed.

These are simply unbiblical. Unless there are any verses that plainly state that salvation or eternal life can be lost, and that being sealed in Him with the Spirit can be unsealed, you have zero credibility.

Those who are "in Christ Jesus", then removed from Christ Jesus, no longer have eternal life.
The verses about being severed and removed are in a totally different context. Just cut and paste.

Those who are in Christ Jesus, but do not remain in Christ Jesus, are thrown into the fire and burned.
This unbiblical assumption has no support from Scripture.

Please explain how someone who does not remain in Christ, somehow still has eternal life?
The Bible says that those who have been sealed IN HIM are guaranteed for the day of redemption. Yet there are some who disagree with Scripture and claim that one can be unsealed.

Nonsense.

Why don't you believe what Jesus said about those He gives eternal life? That they will never perish.

That's a promise based on receiving eternal life. Not by anything we do after receiving the gift.

So, why?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

sdowney717

Newbie
Apr 20, 2013
8,712
2,021
✟102,588.00
Faith
Christian
So a branch that is connected to a vine, isn't really connected to the vine?

Sorry, brother, that makes no sense.


Then you say study the parable of the wheat and tares, as if that explains your 'point" about the branches that are in Him, but do not remain in Him.

Tares were never wheat, and they were never going to be wheat, which is a completely different teaching.

People who are "in Christ", come to be "in Christ", because they believe.

Just like the plant that spouted and grew up for a while, but never produced fruit, because they stopped believing.

13 But the ones on the rock are those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, who believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away. Luke 8:13


These hear the word and receive it with joy, which is the joy of salvation, but after a while they no longer believed and returned to the unbelieving lifestyle they once knew.


  • Believe = Saved
  • Believe for a while = Saved for a while

Do you understand that someone who believes for a while, then no longer believes, is no longer a believer?



JLB
People use the John 15 verses to say a saved person can lose their salvation.
The being 'cast out' as a withered branch that Jesus mentions which is then burned in the fire.
Sure this is eternal destruction, but Jesus also says this about those who believe.

John 5
24 “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.

Christ gives eternal life only to believers, and yes believers must persevere to the end to be saved, that is continue in belief, else they are proven to be antichrists as apostle John says in 1 John 2, which means they were frauds, which means they never really were believers at all. A person can say all sorts of things and not really understand his own self when it comes to spirituality. They are like the seed strewn along the rocky path, which when troubles arise because of the WORD, they fall away since they have no root in their life, and the root here is being born of God in Christ, they were never born of God at all.

For
1 John 5New King James Version (NKJV)
1 Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves Him who begot also loves him who is begotten of Him.

2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep His commandments.

3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome.

4 For whatever is born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world—our faith.

5 Who is he who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?


Those who depart from the faith to follow demonic doctrines or have evil unbelieving hearts that depart from the living God, have not been born of God at any time in their short life on the earth, else they would have continued in the faith since it is God who preserves them.

1 Peter 1, mentions that it is God's mercy that we are born again, and we are kept by the power of God through faith. So you can see your salvation is entirely dependent on the power of God at work in your life. God giving to them the gift of faith. Romans 12:3

3 Blessed
be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4 to an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled and that does not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, 5 who are kept by the power of God through faith for salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

FreeGrace2

Senior Veteran
Nov 15, 2012
20,401
1,703
USA
✟184,557.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
This Wikipedia article says unlimited atonement doesn't mean Jesus paid for the sins of unbelievers. If that is true, there is no difference between limited and unlimited atonement in my opinion.
The Bible says differently. I'll go with the Bible.
2 Pet 2:1 - But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves.

The word "bought" is the same word used in 1 Cor 6:20 and 7:23 for Christ buying believers. Yet here in 2 Pet, the word is used for false teachers, unbelievers.
 
Upvote 0

GillDouglas

Reformed Christian
Dec 21, 2013
1,116
450
USA
Visit site
✟29,425.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
But limited atonement has no place whatsoever in the presentation of the gospel to the world and in fact is not sound doctrine at all even for believers who are ready for solid meat.

I know of no such scriptures and that is why I challenge you to present them for me.

When you and others have attempted to do so in the past you have always lapsed into arguing the sciptures which support the other 4 poiints but not limited atonement. That's because that particular point is not scriptural. If it were you could easily point to the scriptures which support it.

I am not asking for the chance to reprove the scriptures you provide - if you would only do so. I would let the scriptures or lack thereof speak for themselves.

However I would point out that that work according to Ephesians 2:1-3 does not, in and of itself, remove an elect person from the wrath of God. Neither would it for the non elect who could obviously just as easily go into eternity as children of wrath as you or I could go most of a lifetime in that condition.

I would be happy with just one scripture which speaks to limited atonement if you could provide it. Accepting that challenge should be easy if there is one.

Any argument against my logic concerning the Ephesians passage would fall flat IMO as I have pretty much seen them all exhausted over the years.
You have brought up a legitimate challenge here. No other points in the doctrine of grace lacks direct Scriptural backing than Limited Atonement. I think that we could show that there are a great many that could be used to infer that this point is in line with Scripture, but the effort may prove noneffective.

I think we should start with the question: Did Christ offer up Himself a sacrifice for the whole human race, or did His death have special reference to God's chosen elect? Our stance is that Christ did not merely intend to make salvation possible for all men, but rather for those who had been given to Him by the Father. We further state that while Christ died for the elect only, His death has incidental reference to others in so far as they are partakers of common grace.

The need: We believe that the requirement for salvation as originally intended is perfect obedience. We know that Adam failed in his test, and brought upon fall of all mankind. God still demands perfect obedience in order that we might have eternal life. But there are many obstacles that prevent us from achieving this on our own.

Atonement: Most would agree that the atonement is the forgiveness of sins. But there is a little more depth to that, and more to what the atonement does. In ancient Israel, atonement was achieved by the constant sacrifice of animals. There was nothing permanent in their work, and even after adhering to the sacrificial laws they didn't achieve what was necessary. Christ's perfect obedience in life afforded a ransom for the debt of every sin of the individual the atonement is applied to through His one death. Additionally the application of the atonement affords a permanent change to the heart of the individual, allowing them the faith necessary to believe in the saving works just applied to them. Even more still also His righteousness is imputed to the individual so that the sinful nature would be hidden upon entering Heaven, and we would be seen without blemish in eternity.

"For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life." (Leviticus 17:11)

"He entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption." (Hebrews 9:12)

Election: If from eternity God has planned to save one portion of the human race, it would seem to be a contradiction to say that the work of Christ has equal reference to all men, or to say that Christ died for those whom He passed over. If God has elected some, then the primary purpose of Christ's work was to redeem those elect.

"Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God." (Romans 5:2)

Purpose: We would agree that the value of the atonement is sufficient to save all of mankind, it is however also efficient to save the elect. Because of the sinner's own inability either to understand or desire the things of God, the application of the atonement is paramount in those that are to believe. If we say that this atonement is applied to all, and some are not made believers then either man's will is greater than God's or the atonement has no power to save anyone. On the same token, why God would save some and not all, we cannot say. This is the difficulty of this particular doctrine.

"He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed." (1 Peter 2:24)
 
Upvote 0

sdowney717

Newbie
Apr 20, 2013
8,712
2,021
✟102,588.00
Faith
Christian
Paul in v3 teaches that Christ died for 'OUR' sins according to the scriptures which Paul says is the gospel. His death burial and resurrection is for the church that believers may have eternal life.
Christ GAVE Himself for the CHURCH.
Paul speaking here to the church and Christ died for the church.


1 Corinthians 15New King James Version (NKJV)
The Risen Christ, Faith’s Reality
15 Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.

3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. 6 After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. 7 After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. 8 Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.

Ephesians 5:25-27New King James Version (NKJV)
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, 26 that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, 27 that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish.

Clearly Christ gave Himself for the church, for our sins and Christ tells us He dies for the sheep , the sheep being His people. So be careful adding in other ideas.

Romans 5, is a lot of 'we', 'us' , 'towards us', being mentioned as for whom Christ died. AND those for whom Christ died, it is said they are reconciled to God by the death of His Son, so then they are saved.

6 For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.

7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die.

8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him.

10 For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.

11 And not only that, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.

NONE of these verse are relevant to the world.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: MDC
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

MDC

Well-Known Member
Jan 19, 2017
1,127
511
48
Texas
✟59,701.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
You have brought up a legitimate challenge here. No other points in the doctrine of grace lacks direct Scriptural backing than Limited Atonement. I think that we could show that there are a great many that could be used to infer that this point is in line with Scripture, but the effort may prove noneffective.

I think we should start with the question: Did Christ offer up Himself a sacrifice for the whole human race, or did His death have special reference to God's chosen elect? Our stance is that Christ did not merely intend to make salvation possible for all men, but rather for those who had been given to Him by the Father. We further state that while Christ died for the elect only, His death has incidental reference to others in so far as they are partakers of common grace.

The need: We believe that the requirement for salvation as originally intended is perfect obedience. We know that Adam failed in his test, and brought upon fall of all mankind. God still demands perfect obedience in order that we might have eternal life. But there are many obstacles that prevent us from achieving this on our own.

Atonement: Most would agree that the atonement is the forgiveness of sins. But there is a little more depth to that, and more to what the atonement does. In ancient Israel, atonement was achieved by the constant sacrifice of animals. There was nothing permanent in their work, and even after adhering to the sacrificial laws they didn't achieve what was necessary. Christ's perfect obedience in life afforded a ransom for the debt of every sin of the individual the atonement is applied to through His one death. Additionally the application of the atonement affords a permanent change to the heart of the individual, allowing them the faith necessary to believe in the saving works just applied to them. Even more still also His righteousness is imputed to the individual so that the sinful nature would be hidden upon entering Heaven, and we would be seen without blemish in eternity.

"For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life." (Leviticus 17:11)

"He entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption." (Hebrews 9:12)

Election: If from eternity God has planned to save one portion of the human race, it would seem to be a contradiction to say that the work of Christ has equal reference to all men, or to say that Christ died for those whom He passed over. If God has elected some, then the primary purpose of Christ's work was to redeem those elect.

"Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God." (Romans 5:2)

Purpose: We would agree that the value of the atonement is sufficient to save all of mankind, it is however also efficient to save the elect. Because of the sinner's own inability either to understand or desire the things of God, the application of the atonement is paramount in those that are to believe. If we say that this atonement is applied to all, and some are not made believers then either man's will is greater than God's or the atonement has no power to save anyone. On the same token, why God would save some and not all, we cannot say. This is the difficulty of this particular doctrine.

"He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed." (1 Peter 2:24)
Very well said Gill
 
Upvote 0

MDC

Well-Known Member
Jan 19, 2017
1,127
511
48
Texas
✟59,701.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
The gospel message does not necessarily have to tell the world about the total inability of men to understand and respond etc.

It could, of course, tell them of their inability to save themselves by good works. Thus the absolute need for the work of Christ would be properly emphasized.

But total depravity as usually taught by Calvinists is not that doctrine and is not necessary or even desirable to be preached initially even though it is a true doctrine.

Likewise the doctrine of election (although true) has no part in a simple presentation to the world of the gospel and a call to repentance.

Likewise the doctrine of the irresistible inward call of God (although a true doctrine) has no part in a simple call to repent and believe on Christ for one's salvation.

Eternal security is a doctrine which can be presented effectively along with the initial call to believe and be saved.

But limited atonement has no place whatsoever in the presentation of the gospel to the world and in fact is not sound doctrine at all even for believers who are ready for solid meat.

I know of no such scriptures and that is why I challenge you to present them for me.

When you and others have attempted to do so in the past you have always lapsed into arguing the sciptures which support the other 4 poiints but not limited atonement. That's because that particular point is not scriptural. If it were you could easily point to the scriptures which support it.

I am not asking for the chance to reprove the scriptures you provide - if you would only do so. I would let the scriptures or lack thereof speak for themselves.

The logic concerning the fact that one can be a child of wrath even after blood was shed for his sins is a different mode of argument entirely and I have yet to see you refute it or even try to.

I cannot and would not even try to refute election because it is a scripture based doctrine..

I cannot and would not even try to refute the effectual atoning work of Christ for His elect.

However I would point out that that work according to Ephesians 2:1-3 does not, in and of itself, remove an elect person from the wrath of God. Neither would it for the non elect who could obviously just as easily go into eternity as children of wrath as you or I could go most of a lifetime in that condition.

I would be happy with just one scripture which speaks to limited atonement if you could provide it. Accepting that challenge should be easy if there is one.

Any argument against my logic concerning the Ephesians passage would fall flat IMO as I have pretty much seen them all exhausted over the years.

Once more for the record -- I subscribe to all of the 4 points of so called Calvinism but limited atonement - just as did John Calvin, one of my favorite theologians.
I understand what you are saying about the presentation of the gospel Marvin. But what we mean and understand about the gospel is completely different from an Arminian or a pelagian or a papist or a JW and so on. So these truths must be taught with great patience when presenting the gospel message. And as far as Calvin goes about this topic of limited atonement, I see no proof that he held to unlimited atonement as an Arminian would view it. I understand this is a debate whether he did or not. But his stance on the doctrines of grace causes me to disagree, although certain writings of him may hint that he did on the surface hold to an unlimited view. But that in no way solidifies that he did.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: jimmyjimmy
Upvote 0

FreeGrace2

Senior Veteran
Nov 15, 2012
20,401
1,703
USA
✟184,557.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
You have brought up a legitimate challenge here. No other points in the doctrine of grace lacks direct Scriptural backing than Limited Atonement. I think that we could show that there are a great many that could be used to infer that this point is in line with Scripture, but the effort may prove noneffective.
The Bible is very clear about who Christ died for.
2 Cor 5
14For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died.
15 And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again.

2 Cor 5:19 - that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation.

Heb 2:9 - But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

It couldn't be said more clearly than this.

I think we should start with the question: Did Christ offer up Himself a sacrifice for the whole human race, or did His death have special reference to God's chosen elect?
Why not just say "chosen chosen", or "elect elect", which is the same as "chosen elect"? But see how silly that sounds?

However, there are no verses about Christ dying for the elect.

The need: We believe that the requirement for salvation as originally intended is perfect obedience.
Really? Is that what God expected?

We know that Adam failed in his test, and brought upon fall of all mankind.
Is God omniscient? Of course He knew Adam would fail and would need a Savior, which is why Peter wrote this:
1 Peter 1:20- He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.

So, why was He chosen? To be the Savior of the world. John 4:42, 1 John 4:14

God still demands perfect obedience in order that we might have eternal life. But there are many obstacles that prevent us from achieving this on our own.
This is not true. And never was.

Atonement: Most would agree that the atonement is the forgiveness of sins.
There are a number of meanings for 'atonement'. 3 don't fit what Christ did, and 3 do fit what He did. Since the Bible says plainly that He died for all/everyone, His atonement could not have brought forgiveness to mankind, or that would lead to universalism, which is false.

"He entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption." (Hebrews 9:12)
This is not forgiveness. This is the actual purchase of the gift of eternal life for everyone. And knowing that the gift is given only to those who believe.

Election: If from eternity God has planned to save one portion of the human race, it would seem to be a contradiction to say that the work of Christ has equal reference to all men, or to say that Christ died for those whom He passed over. If God has elected some, then the primary purpose of Christ's work was to redeem those elect.
Election has never been about choosing for salvation, although God does choose whom to save. 1 Cor 1:21 tells us exactly who He chooses to save:
For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.
 
Upvote 0

FreeGrace2

Senior Veteran
Nov 15, 2012
20,401
1,703
USA
✟184,557.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Paul in v3 teaches that Christ died for 'OUR' sins according to the scriptures which Paul says is the gospel. His death burial and resurrection is for the church that believers may have eternal life.
Christ GAVE
Himself for the CHURCH.

By reading down through v.11 and getting the whole context, what Paul preached to them in v.3-4 was what he preached to them as part of the gospel. iow, when they were unbelievers, unsaved.


Paul speaking here to the church and Christ died for the church.
He was preaching as a human being to human beings.

Clearly Christ gave Himself for the church
And the Bible tells us a lot more than that:
For whom did Jesus come to save? The sick, the lost, the poor, the unrighteous, the ungodly, and sinners.

Matt 9:12 - On hearing this, Jesus said, it is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. Are just the elect “sick”?

Luke 19:10 - For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost. Are just the elect “lost”?

Luke 4:18 - The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He has anointed Me to preach good news to the poor. Are just the elect poor?

1 Peter 3:18 - For Christ died for sins once FOR ALL, the righteous (Christ) for the unrighteous (humanity, all of them), to bring you to God. Are just the elect unrighteous?

Rom 5:6 - You see, just at the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Are just the elect ungodly?

Mark 2:17 - On hearing this, Jesus said to them, it is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners. Are just the elect sinners?

Isa 61:1 - The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;


The entire human race is described as sick, lost, poor, unrighteous, ungodly, and sinners. Every single one of us.


If Christ died for just the elect, then reformed theology leads to universalism, because of these verses. That means the non elect are neither sick, lost, poor, unrighteous, ungodly, or sinners. So they don’t need salvation. And Christ wouldn’t need to die for any of them.

for our sins and Christ tells us He dies for the sheep , the sheep being His people. So be careful adding in other ideas.
Let's be careful about not missing the key in John 10. Jesus said He would die for "the sheep". Yet, in that context, He noted there were "My sheep", "other sheep of Mine", and those "not of My sheep".

He was clear about how to be saved in v.9 - "enter through Me", which is a reference to believing in Him. Those who believe in Him are His sheep. Those who don't believe are not of His sheep.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Marvin Knox

Senior Veteran
May 9, 2014
4,291
1,453
✟84,588.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
No, I would not. The Bible says that God has revealed Himself to everyone through creation, revealing His eternal power and divine nature, so that no one has any excuse for not glorifying Him as God and being thankful to Him. Rom 1:19,20
1. Some have received an internal call.

2. Some have not received an internal call.

3. All are without excuse.

4. Therefore those who did not received an internal call are without excuse.
The Bible says that God has revealed Himself to everyone through creation, revealing His eternal power and divine nature, so that no one has any excuse for not glorifying Him as God and being thankful to Him. Rom 1:19,20
btw, I believe John 6:45 is directly related to Rom 1:19,20.
"It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me."
Not everyone pays any attention to creation. Even so-called scientists who study creation. And the Bible calls them fools. Psa 14:1-3, 53:1-3.
I believe that Cornelius is a great example of one Gentiles who did pay attention, and recognized God's eternal power and divine nature, and was thankful to Him, as Acts 10 shows. The result was that God sent him more information.
Agreed.
Nope. See above. No one has any excuse.
Exactly.
The point is about being chosen. All are sinners, as you correctly note. Yet, if God didn't choose some, based on His own personal reasons, that in itself creates an excuse for those not chosen.
As you correctly pointed out before - all are without excuse.
However, if Titus 2:11 is true (and it is), then salvation has been made available to all people. So no one has any excuse for not receiving the free gift of eternal lfie.
Exactly.

Limited atonement is a Calvinistic stretch of both the scriptures and good logic.
So no one has any excuse for not receiving the free gift of eternal lfie.
Exactly.

Limited atonement is a Calvinistic stretch of both the scriptures and good logic.
If you ended up in a bad place only because you weren't chosen, and others who were as equally bad (;)) as you were chosen for a really good place, wouldn't it be reasonable to think it wasn't really your fault for ending up where you did, since others equally as bad as you didn't end up there.
It would be expected that you would feel that and I'm sure some will field that excuse.

But it would not be true.
None of which was due to anything on their part?
All of it would be due to their part.

All are sinners and will be punished for their sins.

All are without excuse now.

All will be without excuse in eternity.
 
Upvote 0