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

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

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.

That is the ramification of being "better" or "smarter" than the other one.
In order for you to respond in choosing God, it has to be from a position of goodness. One cannot make a right response in choosing God from a position of blindness, being at war with God, hating God and loving darkness, now can they?

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.

So, you agree that before one can respond affirmatively to the Gospel, there first has to be an act of transformation by the Holy Spirit upon the heart?

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

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

That is a deduction.

Quit employing hypocritical standards.

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

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.

I suggest you read closer.

EVerything I have said is in the CONTEXT of being able to respond(choose) unless one does so from a position of goodness.

 

[Sentry]

I suggest you read closer.

EVerything I have said is in the CONTEXT of being able to respond(choose) unless one does so from a position of goodness.

Then I rest my case.

What does this "goodness" have to do with anything?

 

[depthdeception]

Then the love of God is meaningless because He can't save them all.

This is only true if God's love is such that it cannot exist unless it compels all of its objects into correct alignment to it. However, this is not the love that God has shown in Christ. Rather, God has shown a love that is truly for all and truly unconditional of the response to it. Just as it is possible for a parent to love a child who does not love in return, so God is capable of loving humans who will not reciprocate. However, the truth must be remembered that true love will not force a response...

His love is vitally connected to His wisdom to work out a way to save them and His power to make it happen.

Yes, it is called the Incarnation of Christ, and as Christ was incarnated into the image of humanity, not just the elect, so the benefits of all that the Incarnate Christ accomplishes are fully available to all.

To tell the unbelieving sinner that God's love is on them is to give them an excuse to continue in profligate sin.

Nonsense. Just because one is loved by another does guarantee a certain outcome. Just because a son or daughter is loved by a parent does not mean that they can do whatever they wish without recourse. Besides, if the unbelieving are eternally predestined for damnation by the efficacious will of God, who cares if they use the "love of God" as an excuse to sin--they could do no other, anyway.

If God loves me He won't send me to Hell so it doesn't really matter what I do. John 3:36 doesn't say that the love of God abides on the unbelieving but that the wrath of God abide on the unbelieving.

God sends no one to hell. Humans--through their sin--willfully separate themselves from the infinitely merciful and beneficent creator.

 

[depthdeception]

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

Not to be picky, but this is an important point. Matthew 28:19 may represent a form of the Trinitarian formula, but it does not actually contain the orthodox definition of 3 persons in consubstantial being. Looking at this verse, and even taking into account the bit about "name," the orthodox definition of the Triune nature of God is not necessitated. It could just as easily mean "3 Gods of equal power."

Therefore, the important dividing difference between the doctrine of the Trinity and the pet doctrines of the Reformed Church (limited atonement, penal substitution, etc.) is that the Church has spoken definitively on one, and is silent in its creedal formulations about the others. Obviously, the Reformed Church does not care because they believe that they are the "only" Church and that the rest of us are Pelagians or Semi-pelagians. NOnetheless, the point is well-established that the doctrines of which the Reformed Church makes such a big deal are actually non-essential to proper Christian belief.

 

[Edial]

That is a deduction.

Quit employing hypocritical standards.

Show me a verse that proves "deduces" that Christ died ONLY for the elect.

I showed you the one on the 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, ...
(NAME is singular and 3 presons)


Ed

 

[Edial]

Not to be picky, but this is an important point. Matthew 28:19 may represent a form of the Trinitarian formula, but it does not actually contain the orthodox definition of 3 persons in consubstantial being. Looking at this verse, and even taking into account the bit about "name," the orthodox definition of the Triune nature of God is not necessitated. It could just as easily mean "3 Gods of equal power."

Be picky. But I do think that it defines 1 God in 3 distinct Persons, which is a Christian definition of God.
The singular of the word "name" and the follow up of 3 persons captures the precise definition of Trinity.
Unless I am not seeing what you are saying.

Therefore, the important dividing difference between the doctrine of the Trinity and the pet doctrines of the Reformed Church (limited atonement, penal substitution, etc.) is that the Church has spoken definitively on one, and is silent in its creedal formulations about the others. Obviously, the Reformed Church does not care because they believe that they are the "only" Church and that the rest of us are Pelagians or Semi-pelagians. NOnetheless, the point is well-established that the doctrines of which the Reformed Church makes such a big deal are actually non-essential to proper Christian belief.

The important statement that you made is that ALL agree on the doctrine of Trinity. And very few agree that Christ died ONLY for the elect.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

I am curious though, as to why you would assume I need to "take a breath"?

That implies I am upset or angry over something, which is as far from the truth as the east is from the west.

Why would you make that assumption?

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

And what in particular do you think is not a "manner befitting to the love of Christ"?

I suggest to you, that when Paul called the Judaizers, ministers of Satan, that he did so perfectly within the love of Christ, especially in the love of Christ for the Church, to protect Her from heresy, terrible doctrine, apostasy, false teachers and false prophets.

I have more than ample Scripture that commands we do precisely that.

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.

LOL, ok. I wasn't pushing you on that, now was I?

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.

We'll see.

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.

Ok, let me clarify that for you. Dispensationalists teach that within the family of God, there are two distinct peoples, Jews and Gentiles, with two distinct destinies or destinations for those two peoples, one being an earthly kingdom for the Jews and a heavenly kingdom for the gentiles.

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.

Excellent.

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.

Then why all the huff about arguing over God's truth?

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.

Have you ever read Jeremiah's dispute with the prophets of Baal on Mt. Carmel? I propose to you that it was done in a Divine manner.

Have you ever read how Jesus disputed with the money changers in the temple?

I suggest to you that He did so in a Divine manner.

Maybe you want us to do so in a manner you find pleasing and not one that is within the bounds of Scripture? What do you think?

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

Oakie doakie sister.

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

Show me a verse that proves "deduces" that Christ died ONLY for the elect.

I showed you the one on the 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, ...
(NAME is singular and 3 presons)


Ed

Ed, we have done that so many times that it is pointless to do so now, since all you do is say....that doesn't prove it. That doesn't say Jesus Atoned for the Elect only, wave it off and claim victory, while you turn around and apply a totally different, doubleminded, hypocritical, dishonest standard for interpretation for yourself.

Sorry, I am not going to jump through your dishonest hoops.

 

[MeekOne]

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

That is not what you said in your post #104...responding to my post #89.

 

[MeekOne]

So, you agree that before one can respond affirmatively to the Gospel, there first has to be an act of transformation by the Holy Spirit upon the heart?

Most certainly.

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

So, you agree that before one can respond affirmatively to the Gospel, there first has to be an act of transformation by the Holy Spirit upon the heart?

Most certainly.

Now, does that transformation by the Holy Spirit accomplish the Purpose of God in renewing the spirit unto faith?

 

[MeekOne]

I am curious though, as to why you would assume I need to "take a breath"?

That implies I am upset or angry over something, which is as far from the truth as the east is from the west.

Why would you make that assumption?

Maybe I am the one who needed to take a breath...with all due respect, my brother, some of your posts are very accusatory, and just need to be taken with a grain of salt. I find myself a little taken back and need to remember that we are all in this together.

And what in particular do you think is not a "manner befitting to the love of Christ"?

That would be all the assumptions that you have made of me thus far.

I suggest to you, that when Paul called the Judaizers, ministers of Satan, that he did so perfectly within the love of Christ, especially in the love of Christ for the Church, to protect Her from heresy, terrible doctrine, apostasy, false teachers and false prophets.

I have more than ample Scripture that commands we do precisely that.

I think it is more the way it is being done.

LOL, ok. I wasn't pushing you on that, now was I?

Yes, because you continued to assume my beliefs without letting me present them to you in my own time.

Ok, let me clarify that for you. Dispensationalists teach that within the family of God, there are two distinct peoples, Jews and Gentiles, with two distinct destinies or destinations for those two peoples, one being an earthly kingdom for the Jews and a heavenly kingdom for the gentiles.

Well, there go your assumptions right out the window because that is not what I believe.

Then why all the huff about arguing over God's truth?

I don't know, why don't you tell me?

Have you ever read Jeremiah's dispute with the prophets of Baal on Mt. Carmel? I propose to you that it was done in a Divine manner.

Yes, I have read the entire Bible...funny you should ask that, I just finished yesterday...every word from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21...took me almost 3 years, but I can actually say that now...starting it again in another version, and I know I will get more out of it each time.

Have you ever read how Jesus disputed with the money changers in the temple?

Please see above.

I suggest to you that He did so in a Divine manner.

Jesus is divine, yes.

Maybe you want us to do so in a manner you find pleasing and not one that is within the bounds of Scripture? What do you think?

How about tune the love up a notch? Love is scriptural last I checked, yes?

Oakie doakie sister.

Thank you, bro.

 

[MeekOne]

Now, does that transformation by the Holy Spirit accomplish the Purpose of God in renewing the spirit unto faith?

Could you please rephrase the question. What is it you are truly want to know?

 

[MeekOne]

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

Maybe I am the one who needed to take a breath...with all due respect, my brother, some of your posts are very accusatory, and just need to be taken with a grain of salt. I find myself a little taken back and need to remember that we are all in this together.

Actually sis, they were not accusatory. I admit they were leading questions, ultimately to a conclusion that maybe you have not considered.

And what in particular do you think is not a "manner befitting to the love of Christ"?

That would be all the assumptions that you have made of me thus far.

To my knowledge I have not made any assumptions of you. I have been asking and seeking clarification. I have not assumed you are dispensationalist, your statement concerning two timelines is a classic dispensational teaching.

I suggest to you, that when Paul called the Judaizers, ministers of Satan, that he did so perfectly within the love of Christ, especially in the love of Christ for the Church, to protect Her from heresy, terrible doctrine, apostasy, false teachers and false prophets.

I think it is more the way it is being done.

So, you prefer style over substance?

Do you think God was offended when Paul called the Judaizers "ministers of Satan"?

Yes, because you continued to assume my beliefs without letting me present them to you in my own time.

I wasn't assuming anything about your beliefs. That is why I was asking you. Understand?

Ok, let me clarify that for you. Dispensationalists teach that within the family of God, there are two distinct peoples, Jews and Gentiles, with two distinct destinies or destinations for those two peoples, one being an earthly kingdom for the Jews and a heavenly kingdom for the gentiles.

Well, there go your assumptions right out the window because that is not what I believe.

Sis, I was not making any assumption, I gave you that definition to define what dispensationalists teach concerning the two distinct peoples with two distinct destinations that you took homage with.

How about tune the love up a notch? Love is scriptural last I checked, yes?

What is Biblical love, to you?

Thank you, bro.

No problemo

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

Now, does that transformation by the Holy Spirit accomplish the Purpose of God in renewing the spirit unto faith?

Could you please rephrase the question. What is it you are truly want to know?

Does the transformation by the Holy Spirit in the heart of the spiritually dead sinner, renew that sinner's heart with the capacity to understand and obey the Gospel resulting in that once spiritually dead sinner coming to faith in Christ, as the gift of God by His Grace?

 

[Sentry]

Now, does that transformation by the Holy Spirit accomplish the Purpose of God in renewing the spirit unto faith?



Does the transformation by the Holy Spirit in the heart of the spiritually dead sinner, renew that sinner's heart with the capacity to understand and obey the Gospel resulting in that once spiritually dead sinner coming to faith in Christ, as the gift of God by His Grace?

The Holy Spirit communicates with the spirit within us even before we are born again. This is why Jesus commanded the apostles to do nothing until they were empowered from on high with the Spirit. There is nothing wrong with the spirit in us. It is the flesh that we are that is the problem.

 

[nobdysfool]

Show me a verse that proves "deduces" that Christ died ONLY for the elect.

I showed you the one on the 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, ...
(NAME is singular and 3 presons)Ed

It's not "a" verse. That's where you miss the point. It is a series of verses, and passages that, when taken together, point to the fact that Christ had a specific set of people in mind as He went to the Cross, that He was sent to achieve the redemption of a specific set of people, and that His work on the Cross was not just potential, or a provision, for an as yet un-named and unrealized group or even of all mankind without exception, but specific, particular, and actually accomplished the salvation, in toto, of those whom He died for, and not contingent upon their response, but upon God's unchanging Will and Counsel, whereby He determined to save those whom He chose to save before the foundation of the world, and in Christ, sealed their salvation with His own Blood.