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

[holdon]

Maybe because Scripture says: Christ is a propitiation for the whole world.

Jn 2:2 "and he is the propitiation for our sins; but not for ours alone, but also for the whole world."



Problem is, "holdon" doesn't know what "propitiation" means, therefore he does not grasp the consequences of the "propitiation".

Please tell us what propitiation means. Please do. I think Calvinists in general have a very poor understanding of the atonement. But perhaps you're an exception.

 

[holdon]

so God is now reconciled and at Peace with all the world ?

God is no longer angry with sinners , God's anger has been assuaged. .... and His wrath has been expunged ?


Once you start asking these serious questions , the whole picture shifts around somewhat.



It would behoove you to actually study what "propitiation" actually is.

A propitiation is a sacrifice which satisfies and removes all wrath, guilt and judgment.

If Christ was the propitiation for the entire world, without exception, then every vestige of God's Wrath and Righteous Judgment against sin would be satisfied and removed against everyone in the entire world without exception, with the consequence being everyone in the entire world for all history is saved without exception.

Apart from the fact that I don't see where you get your definition of propitiation from (verses??), you seem to question the apostle John.
You say: "if Christ was the propitiation for the entire world";
John said: "Christ is the propitiation for the entire world".

So, Augustine supercedes the Apostle John??

 

[HITR]

Been there, done that, got the teeshirt.

Do you believe in the doctrine of the Trinity?

If so, then produce one verse, that states in specific terms that God is a Trinity.

Just one.

I'm certainly not who you addressed here, but if I may impose, I'd be willing to offer a few that show this. Not a few out of various texts or chapters, but rather a few in succession, all together, that reveal this truth? This can be found in Titus 3:3-6. Again, while it is not one verse, there are four in succession and I believe that it's relevant to what you've asked.

Verse 4 shows us that the referred God our Saviour is the Father, as it was the Father that sent the Son to men, according to His kindness and love.

Verse 5 Shows us that it is according to His mercy that He has saved us by regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost. This was of Him and sent by Him.

Verse 6 Shows us that it is Jesus, the Son, who is our Saviour. When put with the verse above it (being verse 4), we see that God is our Saviour...Jesus is our Saviour. It is done by the Holy Ghost, and nothing is truly capable of regeneration aside from God.

Just my 2 pennies, fwiw.

Blessings, HITR

 

[DIANAC]

Eddie,

Diana

 

[Edial]

Been there, done that, got the teeshirt.

Do you believe in the doctrine of the Trinity?

If so, then produce one verse, that states in specific terms that God is a Trinity.

Just one.

Good. So yet another Calvinist confesses that there is not one verses that proves that Christ died only for the elect.
And I can show many verses that he died for all.

That is all I want to know.
Because some people have an impression that it is not so.

And I am not wrestling with you opinion or a conclusion. Whether it is as valid as the Trinity or not.

All I know is that they claim that Christ died only for the elect despite of tons of verses that he died for all, ... and cannot produce one verse proving that.

You conclude that he died only for the elect, no problem. Your opinion. You can keep it and I will not try changing it.

Ed

 

[Edial]

I'm certainly not who you addressed here, but if I may impose, I'd be willing to offer a few that show this. Not a few out of various texts or chapters, but rather a few in succession, all together, that reveal this truth? This can be found in Titus 3:3-6. Again, while it is not one verse, there are four in succession and I believe that it's relevant to what you've asked.

Verse 4 shows us that the referred God our Saviour is the Father, as it was the Father that sent the Son to men, according to His kindness and love.

Verse 5 Shows us that it is according to His mercy that He has saved us by regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost. This was of Him and sent by Him.

Verse 6 Shows us that it is Jesus, the Son, who is our Saviour. When put with the verse above it (being verse 4), we see that God is our Saviour...Jesus is our Saviour. It is done by the Holy Ghost, and nothing is truly capable of regeneration aside from God.

Just my 2 pennies, fwiw.

Blessings, HITR

Of course he is OUR Savior. Yours and mine.
Yet you will not find that he died only for the elect.
He died for the whole world, yet many refused him.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[HITR]

Of course he is OUR Savior. Yours and mine.
Yet you will not find that he died only for the elect.
He died for the whole world, yet many refused him.

Thanks,
Ed

Hi, Ed, nice to meet you.

Of course He did, for all those who will believe. The Word is quite clear on that. The intent of my post was strictly to address the continued issue/question on the validity of the trinity in Scripture. Hope that helps.

Many blessings, HITR

***Edited to clarify***

No, I do not believe that He died for only His elect. As 1 John 2 clearly states, He is the propitiation for the whole world. Yes, I believe that He died for mankind. I believe John 1 when it is given that all who receive Him are given the power to become the children of God, even those that believe upon His name. Those born of the Spirit rather than those born of flesh and blood. Hope that helps!

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

I'm certainly not who you addressed here, but if I may impose, I'd be willing to offer a few that show this. Not a few out of various texts or chapters, but rather a few in succession, all together, that reveal this truth? This can be found in Titus 3:3-6. Again, while it is not one verse, there are four in succession and I believe that it's relevant to what you've asked.

Verse 4 shows us that the referred God our Saviour is the Father, as it was the Father that sent the Son to men, according to His kindness and love.

Verse 5 Shows us that it is according to His mercy that He has saved us by regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost. This was of Him and sent by Him.

Verse 6 Shows us that it is Jesus, the Son, who is our Saviour. When put with the verse above it (being verse 4), we see that God is our Saviour...Jesus is our Saviour. It is done by the Holy Ghost, and nothing is truly capable of regeneration aside from God.

Just my 2 pennies, fwiw.

Blessings, HITR

I think you are missing the point.

Some here demand passages with exact wording that says, "Christ died only for the Elect."

They hold that demand for exact, specific language as a principle for their interpretations.

Problem is, they only hold that principle when it applies to doctrines such as Particular Redemption, Election, etc, but when it comes to others, such as the doctrine of the Trinity, they do not hold that principle.

In other words, their so-called "principles" are about as good as any other relativist, they change with their feelings.

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

Good. So yet another Calvinist confesses that there is not one verses that proves that Christ died only for the elect.
And I can show many verses that he died for all.

Ed

Ed, quit being so disingenuous.

We have given you lots of passages, and you know it.

Now, give us ONE SINGLE passage that states specifically, in precise, exact terms that God is a Trinity.

Go ahead.

 

[holdon]

In other words, their so-called "principles" are about as good as any other relativist, they change with their feelings.

Like that "entire world" does not really mean "entire world". And "all" is not really "all", etc.etc..

By the way, How are you feeling today?

 

[Edial]

Hi, Ed, nice to meet you.

Of course He did, for all those who will believe. The Word is quite clear on that. The intent of my post was strictly to address the continued issue/question on the validity of the trinity in Scripture. Hope that helps.

Many blessings, HITR

If the Word is quite clear that he died ONLY for all that believe - where?

There are verses that state that he died for the Church, but not only for the Church.

I can show a verse that he died for one person, does that mean that he died ONLY for that one person?

I can show many verses that he died for all, the whole world and so on.

The Limited Atonement is a conclusion upon which the Calvinism stands.
That's all I am pointing out.

Now, if you believe that the Trinity is an appropriate analogy and you are comparing (or elevating) your opinion to the value of that of the Trinity - no problem. Your opinion. Your elevation. Your choice.

Really, there are no hard feelings on this one.

It is good however, to see that Calvinists are coming out and presenting (in their own words of course) that there indeed is no Scriptural proof that he died only for the elect.

Opinion, yes, conclusion, yes, but no proof.

Thank,
Ed

 

[HITR]

I think you are missing the point.

Some here demand passages with exact wording that says, "Christ died only for the Elect."

They hold that demand for exact, specific language as a principle for their interpretations.

Problem is, they only hold that principle when it applies to doctrines such as Particular Redemption, Election, etc, but when it comes to others, such as the doctrine of the Trinity, they do not hold that principle.

In other words, their so-called "principles" are about as good as any other relativist, they change with their feelings.

With all due respect, AwasC, no I'm not missing the point. I have read pretty clearly what they are asking for, what they expect of those they have asked, and what they are seeking.

That aside I was, again, only addressing your continued question on the validity of the trinity being shown rather clearly in the Scriptures. You have not commented on my post in response to issue of the trinity. I have shown you a place where it is quite clear that all three are God. Do you disagree?

As for Calvinism, and the doctrine that Jesus died only for the elect (clearly defining that those who are damned were created for that purpose), I don't find it anywhere either, so with them I agree.

Now, I hear what you're saying, that we who do not subscribe to predestined election (in the sense of calvinism) don't apply that across the board. As a truth, I'm sure there are plenty of which this is a true assessment. However there are plenty that believe in the free will of man, even unto salvation, that do apply it across the board. I know that I certainly do. The difference is that I see how predestination (as the Word clearly speaks of this!) is not counter to free will, as I have said I believe. Quite the contrary, they are complimentary...that's what I've seen. And yes, free will does have a significant role in all of that.

But I digress...I only intended to answer your continued question on the trinity, just for the sake of moving that out of the way a bit for the sake of the election discussion, fwiw.

Many blessings, HITR

 

[Edial]

Ed, quit being so disingenuous.

We have given you lots of passages, and you know it.

Now, give us ONE SINGLE passage that states specifically, in precise, exact terms that God is a Trinity.

Go ahead.

I know it is hard to admit. I understand that. I really do.

But there are no verses stating that Christ died ONLY for the elect while the Calvinists claim that he died ONLY for the elect.
They are the ones that claimed it, after all.

There is a bunch that states that he died for the entire world, and that many rejected him.

That's all.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[Defcon]

I know it is hard to admit. I understand that. I really do.

But there are no verses stating that Christ died ONLY for the elect while the Calvinists claim that he died ONLY for the elect.
They are the ones that claimed it, after all.

There is a bunch that states that he died for the entire world, and that many rejected him.

That's all.

Thanks,
Ed

Yes, what a terrible, terrible doctrine that causes us to delve into the scriptures to determine what Christ's intended end was in His atonement. From there we may have to read more scripture to see Christ is only fulfilling the role of high priest if he not only atones but intercedes for those He was sacrificed for. From such explorations we must answer questions such as "Did Christ fail in what He intended to do?"; "Could He have failed and saved none at all?"; "If He intercedes for all those He died for, why aren't all saved?" - as if we must move on past our spiritual milk and on to meat, heaven forbid .

Beyond your constant dodging of proving the Trinity, how about showing one verse where it says that men have equally the same free-will to choose Christ - oh and that doesn't mean that you can "imply" free-will as your standards rule out such thought. So now you have 2 challenges - the Trinity and free-will; prove them by your standards.

 

[kw5kw]

<snip>
It is good however, to see that Calvinists are coming out and presenting (in their own words of course) that there indeed is no Scriptural proof that he died only for the elect.<snip>
Thank,
Ed

There are several doctrines that we all as Christians beleive that are not in the Bible.

1) The Trinity. We all believe in One God in three persons -viz. the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Yet, nowhere in the Whole Bible is the word 'Trinity' used.

2) Limited Atonement. We all believe that Christ died for our sins, right? Those who have not only read but understand the deep theological meaning in John Calvin's "Institues of the Christian Religion" are able to grasp the fact that all true Christians are of the 'elect', and therefore all true Christians will be saved because Christ died for their sins. Up until a couple of months ago, I must admit, I was leaning more towards Amyraldianism myself -- that is, until I started reading Book 3, Chapter 2-5 plus Book 2, Chapter 17 and back to book 3 chapter 21-25.

All I can say is there is just way, way too much to type in here. What most people don't understand about those who understand John Calvin's doctrine, is we're assured of being there -- are you so sure?

 

[Edial]

Trinity question.

There are several doctrines that we all as Christians beleive that are not in the Bible.

1) The Trinity. We all believe in One God in three persons -viz. the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Yet, nowhere in the Whole Bible is the word 'Trinity' used.

2) Limited Atonement. We all believe that Christ died for our sins, right?

1. A word "Trinity" is not mentioned in the Bible.
Trinity - one God in three persons.
One God in three persons is defined clearly in the Bible.

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. One God in three persons (Father, Son and the Holy Spirit).


The words "Limited Atonement" are not mentioned in the Bible.
Limited Atonement - Christ died ONLY for the elect.

And there are no verses that Christ died ONLY for the elect.

Those who have not only read but understand the deep theological meaning in John Calvin's "Institues of the Christian Religion" are able to grasp the fact that all true Christians are of the 'elect', and therefore all true Christians will be saved because Christ died for their sins. Up until a couple of months ago, I must admit, I was leaning more towards Amyraldianism myself -- that is, until I started reading Book 3, Chapter 2-5 plus Book 2, Chapter 17 and back to book 3 chapter 21-25.

All I can say is there is just way, way too much to type in here. What most people don't understand about those who understand John Calvin's doctrine, is we're assured of being there -- are you so sure?

"Deep theological meanings" in John Calvin's Institutes are understood the best by John Calvin, the author.
And, in his his Last Will and Testament he repented of the doctrine of the Limited Atonement - his excerpts are coming up tomorrow (not with me, gotta run).

Thanks,
Ed

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

With all due respect, AwasC, no I'm not missing the point. I have read pretty clearly what they are asking for, what they expect of those they have asked, and what they are seeking.

That aside I was, again, only addressing your continued question on the validity of the trinity being shown rather clearly in the Scriptures. You have not commented on my post in response to issue of the trinity. I have shown you a place where it is quite clear that all three are God. Do you disagree?

Your passage in Titus does not use the explicit, specific language that states plainly God is a Trinity. It has to be inferred or concluded.

As for Calvinism, and the doctrine that Jesus died only for the elect (clearly defining that those who are damned were created for that purpose), I don't find it anywhere either, so with them I agree.

As I and others have done, we have produced many passages from which Particular Redemption is clearly displayed as your Titus 3 passage displays the Trinity.

I contend that you will not employ the same method for those as you do for Titus.

Now, I hear what you're saying, that we who do not subscribe to predestined election (in the sense of calvinism) don't apply that across the board. As a truth, I'm sure there are plenty of which this is a true assessment. However there are plenty that believe in the free will of man, even unto salvation, that do apply it across the board. I know that I certainly do. The difference is that I see how predestination (as the Word clearly speaks of this!) is not counter to free will, as I have said I believe. Quite the contrary, they are complimentary...that's what I've seen. And yes, free will does have a significant role in all of that.

I can produce a mountain of Scripture that clearly depicts man as born of Adam as not "free" but dead and in bondage to sin, and in his natural state not being able to understand the things of God, bur rather he finds them to be foolishness.

Do you believe that the natural man seeks God, can understand the things of God and in his natural state can come to faith without being born again?

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

With all due respect, AwasC, no I'm not missing the point. I have read pretty clearly what they are asking for, what they expect of those they have asked, and what they are seeking.

That aside I was, again, only addressing your continued question on the validity of the trinity being shown rather clearly in the Scriptures. You have not commented on my post in response to issue of the trinity. I have shown you a place where it is quite clear that all three are God. Do you disagree?

As for Calvinism, and the doctrine that Jesus died only for the elect (clearly defining that those who are damned were created for that purpose), I don't find it anywhere either, so with them I agree.

Now, I hear what you're saying, that we who do not subscribe to predestined election (in the sense of calvinism) don't apply that across the board. As a truth, I'm sure there are plenty of which this is a true assessment. However there are plenty that believe in the free will of man, even unto salvation, that do apply it across the board. I know that I certainly do. The difference is that I see how predestination (as the Word clearly speaks of this!) is not counter to free will, as I have said I believe. Quite the contrary, they are complimentary...that's what I've seen. And yes, free will does have a significant role in all of that.

But I digress...I only intended to answer your continued question on the trinity, just for the sake of moving that out of the way a bit for the sake of the election discussion, fwiw.

Many blessings, HITR

Now, find me one single verse that states explicitly that "God is a Trinity".

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

It is good however, to see that Calvinists are coming out and presenting (in their own words of course) that there indeed is no Scriptural proof that he died only for the elect.

Opinion, yes, conclusion, yes, but no proof.

Thank,
Ed

Ed, stop being so disingenuous and misrepresenting what we say, ok.

We do not say there is no "Scriptural proof" at all, so quit lying.

So, you do not believe that the conclusions drawn from Scripture for the Trinity is "proof"?

Whether you realize it or not, that is what you are saying.

What we say, is that you do not subscribe to the same interpretative principles in both examples, but use a doubleminded, free floating principle that would make any postmodernist proud.

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

"propitiation".