Why isn't the Limited Atonement Doctrine not taught anymore?

[MeekOne]

Meek One, since you subscribe to the dispensational version of theology, that in itself classifies you as a dispensationalist.

It's not an insult or calling you a name. It is a shorthand method of identifying you with your beliefs.

I understand what you are saying, but I don't know anything about being a dispensationalist, so therefore, would prefer you don't label me even in the context of trying to identify me with my beliefs until you have heard what I believe. How do you know that the timelines I will describe to you will coincide with the dispensationalistic view? Please wait until I can gather all my thoughts and present it to you before you guys pick it apart. Thanks

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

If you could grasp that there are two different timelines in scripture, it may make more sense to all of you and slapping each other around won't be necessary...we could fellowship instead of argue.

To not dispute over truth is an evil itself. Jesus did. The Apostles did. the OT prophets did.

You contend there are two timelines, which you have been taught by dispensational teachers. Yet you say you believe the Bible.

We contend that the dispensational teaching is in terrible error, and is not Biblical, but has to have a dispensational view read into certain passages as opposed to letting the Scripture speak on it's own.

Dispensational teaching has led to some horrible misconceptions and heresies, is highly sensationalistic and full of sophists.

Dispensationalists say God has two distinct peoples, and two distinct destinations for those peoples, hence your two timelines.

Well, Jesus was quite clear that He had ONE flock;

John 10:16
And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd.

Scripture is also very clear that there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile.

Romans 10:12
For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him.

Acts 15:8-10

8 So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, 9 and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.


One of the infections of postmodernism in the church is to disdain disputes over God's truth, as if every doctrine held and proposed by everyone is as good as another.

We are not to be conformed to this world and it's norms. To not dispute theological errors would be to disobey Divine command.

 

[MeekOne]

So, you had a righteousness or goodness that the other person did not have?

Did I say that? I don't remember saying that. I don't think I ever used the words goodness or righteousness in the context of our conversation. Interesting...are these words you heard others say and want me to adopt them as well? It just doesn't fit right does it.

In order for you to make the right choice, you have to have had enough goodness and righteousness to make that right choice whereas the other fellow did not.

Says who?

Do you think you can make the right choice without making it from a position of goodness?

Yes, I do. BTW...I was kidding about being smart enough before. It is the Lord's Holy Spirit that guides us to making that decision. Its one of the reasons we pray before ministering to others that the Lord open their hearts to hear the true message of the gospel presentation and ask Him to give them the Spirit of acceptance.

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

I didn't say you had to do anything. As far as labels go they are really unimportant. As I said, if you aren't one it will become apparent as you continue to post. I am patient and am looking forward to what you have to say. Not so as to tear down but to understand better what you mean. I will say that I have been doing my utmost to be gentle in what I post but I do often get tired of pussyfooting with those who oppose the truth of God. I do not intend to be offensive but often the truth is offensive. The Apostles understood this better than we do. Everywhere they went people were trying to kill them for speaking the truth. I would ask that you also be patient with me and seek to understand that I am only concerned for the glory of God and the good of His people.

Good show bro, my sentiments exactly.

 

[MeekOne]

I didn't say you had to do anything. As far as labels go they are really unimportant. As I said, if you aren't one it will become apparent as you continue to post. I am patient and am looking forward to what you have to say. Not so as to tear down but to understand better what you mean. I will say that I have been doing my utmost to be gentle in what I post but I do often get tired of pussyfooting with those who oppose the truth of God. I do not intend to be offensive but often the truth is offensive. The Apostles understood this better than we do. Everywhere they went people were trying to kill them for speaking the truth. I would ask that you also be patient with me and seek to understand that I am only concerned for the glory of God and the good of His people.

I think you and I are on the same page here.

 

[kw5kw]

I've been silent, but I'm working.
If you want to get a head start on what I'm preparing go to Rom x. 1-4

I've been working on this all last night, all morning so far, and it might not be ready until sometime late today or tomorrow even.

Russ

 

[mlqurgw]

I think you and I are on the same page here.

I certainly hope so. It does remain to be seen though whether we agree on some serious issues. I do pray that I have been mistaken concerning quite a lot of people I have conversed with on these boards and others. I recognize that we simply cannot truly get to know someone from a computer connection. It isn't a real relationship as many are completly different people on the internet than they are in real life.

 

[Edial]

Of course there aren't explicit terms used in the bible like limited atonement, Trinity, Rapture and the Millennium. But this not mean the teaching of those terms are not found. Because they are. Let us look at the limited or particular atonement.

Christ bore our sins in his body I Peter 2:24

Matt 20:28

28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

KJV

Titus 2:14

14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

KJV

Rev 5:9

9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

KJV

Eph 1:7

7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

KJV

Titus 2:13-14

14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good.

NIV

All these verses and more point to the fact that Christ ACTUALLY paid the penalty for your sins not now, but 2,000 years ago on the cross. BEFORE YOU EVEN WERE BORN. God the Father in his foreknowledge knew who would believe on the Lord in the corridor of time and sent his Son to die FOR HIS PEOPLE. His elect. Christ died for a particular people and that is why it is called a limited or particular atonement.

Those on this board who say Christ died for all men without exception cannot say Christ paid for all these men's sins. Only for those who would believe. So these posters have a Christ who did not pay for anyone sins at all, but are only forgiven when they believe. Thus the believer becomes his own Saviour and not Jesus Christ. What is even worse, if Christ did pay for the sins of the world, then why is anyone in hell right now? You say because of unbelief. Then if it is of unbelief, then Christ did not really pay for their sins to begin with in reality. Either Christ was your true Savior 2,000 years ago or he's not. Did Christ really die for your sins? Or are you your own Saviour?

But all these verses are in the textual context of the Church. That is why he saying that he did this or that for us.
But it does not say only for us.
Here is a verse that expands that context -

1JN 2:2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

In this context he is expanded beyond the Church.

The message is that he died for all (church and non-church) yet many rejected him.

That is why there are no verses stating that he died ONLY for the church. Because he did not, he died for all, yet many rejected him.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[MeekOne]

To not dispute over truth is an evil itself. Jesus did. The Apostles did. the OT prophets did.

I agree, but we can do it in a manner befitting to the love of Christ, yes?

You contend there are two timelines, which you have been taught by dispensational teachers. Yet you say you believe the Bible.

What I will present to you, hopefully by next week, is completely scriptural. Please keep an open mind as you haven't even heard what I have to say yet.

We contend that the dispensational teaching is in terrible error, and is not Biblical, but has to have a dispensational view read into certain passages as opposed to letting the Scripture speak on it's own.

Who is "we?" I agree that anything that is not Biblical is in error...terrible at that. What I will have to say will be completely scriptural...with verses and everything.

Dispensational teaching has led to some horrible misconceptions and heresies, is highly sensationalistic and full of sophists.

Okay, I'll take your word for that...I don't know anything about dispensationalism.

Dispensationalists say God has two distinct peoples, and two distinct destinations for those peoples, hence your two timelines.

Do you agree that there are two distinct people of the Bible called Isrealites and Gentiles? As far as two distinct destinations go...there is...but it does not separate Isrealites from Gentiles...it separates Heaven from Hell.

Well, Jesus was quite clear that He had ONE flock;

John 10:16
And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd.

Scripture is also very clear that there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile.

Romans 10:12
For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him.

Acts 15:8-10

8 So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, 9 and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

In complete agreement here.

One of the infections of postmodernism in the church is to disdain disputes over God's truth, as if every doctrine held and proposed by everyone is as good as another.

In complete agreement here too.

We are not to be conformed to this world and it's norms. To not dispute theological errors would be to disobey Divine command.

Also in agreement, but we can do it devinely as well.

Please, don't try to pick my brain any longer. I have to get off here, I promise to come back to discuss this and give you a clearer view. Please respect that I want to present it to you in my own way. Thanks

 

[MeekOne]

I've been silent, but I'm working.
If you want to get a head start on what I'm preparing go to Rom x. 1-4

I've been working on this all last night, all morning so far, and it might not be ready until sometime late today or tomorrow even.

Russ

Glad you are still out there, my brother!

 

[Edial]

I've been silent, but I'm working.
If you want to get a head start on what I'm preparing go to Rom x. 1-4

I've been working on this all last night, all morning so far, and it might not be ready until sometime late today or tomorrow even.

Russ

Thanks Russ. Looking forwards to it.

Ed

 

[mlqurgw]

But all these verses are in the textual context of the Church. That is why he saying that he did this or that for us.
But it does not say only for us.
Here is a verse that expands that context -

1JN 2:2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

In this context he is expanded beyond the Church.

The message is that he died for all (church and non-church) yet many rejected him.

That is why there are no verses stating that he died ONLY for the church. Because he did not, he died for all, yet many rejected him.

Thanks,
Ed

What then did His death accomplish? Did He not take possesion of eternal redemption as is stated in Heb. 9:12?

 

[Sentry]

What then did His death accomplish? Did He not take possesion of eternal redemption as is stated in Heb. 9:12?

Yes he did find eternal redemption as stated in Hebrews 9:12.

For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to perfect the author of their salvation through sufferings.

For the Law appoints men as high priests who are weak, but the word of the oath, which came after the Law, appoints a Son, made perfect forever.

In the days of His flesh, He offered up both prayers and supplications with loud crying and tears to the One able to save Him from death, and He was heard because of His piety. Although He was a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered. And having been made perfect, He became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal salvation.

 

[Edial]

...

"You don't need a single verse for the Trinity, for Holy Tradition has made that belief an indentifying, creedal element of orthodox belief. Limited Atonement, on the other hand, enjoys no such distinction. Therefore, while the Reformed will foam at the mouth about "semi-Pelagian" this and "Arminian" that--dropping these terms in an obnoxiously gratuitous manner--the point is that there are no creedal statements about Limited Atonement that make it the only possible or appropriate view of what Christ has done for humanity. Moreover, if one honestly looks at historic tradition (that being of both the Western and Eastern Church), Limited Atonement is few and far between."

.....

It's not addressed to me, but I am certain that you would not mind, depthdeception.

It is a good point.

But actually there is a verse that plainly proves the doctrine of Trinity.

MT 28:19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, ...

Here, "name" is singular and three persons Father, Son an dthe Holy Spirit.

One God in 3 persons.

The Limited Atonement does not have any verses proving their doctrine that Christ died ONLY for the elect.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

Hey, I thought we were friends...what's the deal getting all over me about this? Answer: Definitely.

We are friends, and I am not "getting all over you about this".

I am questioning some things. Friends are at liberty to do that, are we not?


No, when I asked you if you were better than the other one who rejects God, you gave an affirmative, definitely.

Were you better than the other one?


"In God's eyes, definitely."

Yes, definitely. In God's eyes He sees me through His Son, therefore, I am blameless. I am perfect in His eyes, and He knew I would be before there was time.

Once again, since God knew you would make the right choice and choose you on that condition, then you had to have had some inherent goodness which enabled you to make the right choice, a goodness that the other one did not have.

Not good enough...I wouldn't use that phrase...I would use smart enough.

To be "smart enough" means you would have to have some goodness which that smartness is attributed to.

 

[DIANAC]

Russ,I will be looking for your post.
Diana

 

[Sentry]

Auggie there is something you don't get here. You are actually betraying yourself. When you hear that people believe in response to God's call, you are objecting by beginning with the premise that God would be saving us based on something righteous we do, as if to say, we are the cause, and God's salvation is the effect. In other words, you are assuming this would mean God is responding to our act. This is quite incorrect. When we believe we are responding to HIS act and HIS righteousness.

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

But actually there is a verse that plainly proves the doctrine of Trinity.

MT 28:19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, ...

Here, "name" is singular and three persons Father, Son an dthe Holy Spirit.

One God in 3 persons.

That passages does not state explicitly in the kind of cast iron literal lauguage you demand for Limited Atonement, that God is a Trinity.

One has to deduce the Trinity from that passage, and any other passage for that matter.

The fact is, as stated many times before, you do not hold to the same interpretive principle in both cases.

You hold one that you find most expedient in the case of the Trinity, yet demand another for Limited Atonement, which happens to be blatant hypocrisy and doublemindedness, as well as being intellectually dishonest.

 

[mlqurgw]

Yes he did find eternal redemption as stated in Hebrews 9:12.

For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to perfect the author of their salvation through sufferings.

For the Law appoints men as high priests who are weak, but the word of the oath, which came after the Law, appoints a Son, made perfect forever.

In the days of His flesh, He offered up both prayers and supplications with loud crying and tears to the One able to save Him from death, and He was heard because of His piety. Although He was a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered. And having been made perfect, He became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal salvation.

You didn't answer my question this time. And the word translated obtained in the KJV is in the middle voice and signifies taking possesion.

 

[Edial]

That passages does not state explicitly in the kind of cast iron literal lauguage you demand for Limited Atonement, that God is a Trinity.

One has to deduce the Trinity from that passage, and any other passage for that matter.

The fact is, as stated many times before, you do not hold to the same interpretive principle in both cases.

You hold one that you find most expedient in the case of the Trinity, yet demand another for Limited Atonement, which happens to be blatant hypocrisy and doublemindedness, as well as being intellectually dishonest.

The question is not whether the word "Trinity" is mentioned, but whether the doctrine of Trinity is mentioned - 1 God in 3 Persons.
And it is -

MT 28:19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, ...

Here, "name" is singular and three persons Father, Son and the Holy Spirit.

One God in 3 persons.


The same way, the question is not whether the words "Limited Atonement" are mentions, but whether the doctrine of the Limited Atonement is mentioned - Christ died ONLY for the elect.

And there is no verse stating that.

Ed