Limited Atonement?

[KingJ]

Exactly KingJ...The failure lies squarely on the shoulders of the lost ...NOT GOD

Amen. Can you imagine if what Jack is teaching was actually true? Oh boy would their be riots in heaven.

Thanks for the 1 Corinthians verse, much dislike by Calvinists, I'll wager!Amen!

I am starting to realize that they actually have to overlook and twist many scriptures. I don't think many have though it through to the core. That's why I really hope examples like 'killing babies' hits home.

 

[farouk]

Yes...It's a rats nest of ideas....BUT we are dealing with what folks are promoting HERE, on this forum...not the whole kettle of fish called Calvinism.

There are basic concepts, which members seem to cling to, so we are trying to discuss them. Read up on this thread and maybe the other one "Sovereign Election".

You mean it's what Ephesians 1 says about election that bothers you? (I'm sorry; I didn't maybe phrase this too well; but I guess the passage is kind of pivotal, anyway.)

Blessings.

 

[Jack Williamson]

Jack if that were the case....why are you not killing babies?

Do we a) selflessly kill our babies before the age of accountability? or b) let them live on as we believe that they have a fair and equal chance of being one of the chosen or c) do nothing as we believe that God is so demented / sick and evil that He would send little babies to hell?

Nah, God succeeded in being good and impartial. Having a valid reason now for sadly sending many to hell. He does what pleases Him. He doesn't want to judge Himself as bad / partial. Or have us harassing Him for eternity on His partiality...if we can deduce it is wrong now...how much MORE in heaven!!! God will be in His own hell. I will make Him remove everyone from hell and do things properly . But then He has already done it properly and fairly. Again Jack, imagine YOU are in hell. You have never sinned and feel like you deserve hell for it? Nobody who understands God's grace can ever say the worst of the worst has not got hope. No smart Christian would ever judge themselves as one of the 'chosen'. 1 Cor 10:12 Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall.

I'm not completely understanding this last paragraph, but there is no such thing as a human being who hasn't sin. We are born in sin as Ps. 51:5 & 58:3 tell us.

 

[KingJ]

I'm not completely understanding this last paragraph, but there is no such thing as a human being who hasn't sin. We are born in sin as Ps. 51:5 & 58:3 tell us.

Jack can you tell me what your answer is to killing babies. A, B or C?

 

[farouk]

As long as you realize that only the '5pointers / hardcore Calvinists' accept limited atonement.

I think it also depends on what is actually meant by limited atonement: not everyone is saved; and the cross did indeed secure the redemption of God's people.

But maybe I should bow out of this thread.

 

[farouk]

No...The Bible doesn't bother me, people's warped or biased ideas about IT do!

We have already discussed this at length elsewhere: The election thread may help you, as I will not spend my or other's time re-writing the whole argument.

We (KingJ, Stan and myself) see 'predestined' as the Lord's Plan of salvation was agreed upon by the Father and Son before the Fall....NOT some pre-creation decision "Gee, I'll save farouk, but fry farouk's Dad"....

God's plan, all, any, "that will come" that cuts across racial, national or geographical differences is what Paul was constantly reminding Gentile converts. The elitism of the Jews was as rife then as rabid Calvinists of any age.

Since you didnt know my father, your comment is somewhat gratuitous.

 

[KingJ]

I think it also depends on what is actually meant by limited atonement: not everyone is saved; and the cross did indeed secure the redemption of God's people. But maybe I should bow out of this thread.

It is hard to pin Calvinists. I actually like the fact that Stan made the the thread title one of the actual 5 points of Calvinism for clearer discussion.

Limited atonement means limited atonement. That's why not all Calvinists accept it.

 

[Jack Williamson]

No...The Bible doesn't bother me, people's warped or biased ideas about IT do!

We have already discussed this at length elsewhere: The election thread may help you, as I will not spend my or other's time re-writing the whole argument.

We (KingJ, Stan and myself) see 'predestined' as the Lord's Plan of salvation was agreed upon by the Father and Son before the Fall....NOT some pre-creation decision "Gee, I'll save farouk, but fry farouk's Dad"....

God's plan, all, any, "that will come" that cuts across racial, national or geographical differences is what Paul was constantly reminding Gentile converts. The elitism of the Jews was as rife then as rabid Calvinists of any age.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion. But I'm curious how you derive the idea that the election didn't happen before creation when Paul specifically said, "Chosen in Him BEFORE THE FOUNDATION of the world"?

 

[Jack Williamson]

Jack can you tell me what your answer is to killing babies. A, B or C?

None of the above: I answered that killing babies is a sin. Is there some part of that you're not understanding?

 

[farouk]

I think I'm out of here; even if I'm called a quitter (remember Ross Perot's mirror?)

I'll go read and enjoy Ephesians by myself, maybe.

Blessings.

 

[Jack Williamson]

It is hard to pin Calvinists. I actually like the fact that Stan made the the thread title one of the actual 5 points of Calvinism for clearer discussion.

Limited atonement means limited atonement. That's why not all Calvinists accept it.

It's actually called, "Particular Redemption." Everyone limits the atonement. Most, like you, limit it in power that by itself it doesn't say anyone but potentially saves everyone. Jesus said, "The Son of Man came not to be ministered unto but to minister and to give his life a ransom FOR MANY" (Mk. 10:45). The original language word for "many" (POLLOS) is never found in a context that means everyone without exception. It means a group without exception. Particular Redemption limits the atonement in scope teaching that Christ only died for those who will be saved. Hence, his atonement actually saves people. The angel said to Joseph, "You will call his name Jesus FOR HE SHALL SAVE his people from their sins" and that's exactly what He did. He didn't come "to try" and save everyone. He came to save "his people." He was 100% successful in his mission.

 

[KingJ]

None of the above: I answered that killing babies is a sin.

Jack you are completely dodging the question. Yes, murder is a sin. But are you telling me that if you knew a way to secure your babies future in heaven you will not grab it despite the consequence to yours? Either killing babies is something we must all do OR God is NOT partial and our babies will grow up with equal chances as everyone else. EVEN if your adopted baby is from Hitlers line.

Please.... a,b or c. There is NO d!

We can do this another way if you like. What happens to babies when they die? Either a) they go to heaven b) they go to hell or c) some to heaven and some to hell?

 

[Jack Williamson]

If you believe in the age of accountability, the question actually applies to you, not me. Why don't you kills babies before they reach that age and ensure their place in heaven? I'm not dodging anything. I said killing babies is a sin and no one should do it. If you can't understand that answer, that's really not my problem. Calvinists, especially where I live, are in the forefront of the Pro-Life Movement as they should be.

 

[KingJ]

If you believe in the age of accountability, the question actually applies to you, not me. Why don't you kills babies before they reach that age and ensure their place in heaven? I'm not dodging anything. I said killing babies is a sin and no one should do it. If you can't understand that answer, that's really not my problem. Calvinists, especially where I live, are in the forefront of the Pro-Life Movement as they should be.

Jack please I am pleading with you to examine your belief further.

You have no-where to run believing God is partial. Believing God can send any babies to hell = pure madness. Killing babies = pure madness. Leaving your baby to face 100/1 odds against them not being one of God's chosen just so that you don't ''sin'' = terrible parent / Christian.

As for me....I believe God is impartial. Hence if temptation / devil was placed with Adam and Eve, likewise the devil / temptation will come to every human (what other reason for scripture like Rev 20:7?). We have a chance / privilege to be directly involved in toiling their hearts for Jesus and we will do so as we know they all have an equal and fair opportunity to come to Jesus....even if its Hitlers kid we adopted.

 

[Jack Williamson]

Jack please I am pleading with you to examine your belief further.

You have no-where to run believing God is partial. Believing God can send any babies to hell = pure madness. Killing babies = pure madness. Leaving your baby to face 100/1 odds against them not being one of God's chosen just so that you don't ''sin'' = terrible parent / Christian.

As for me....I believe God is impartial. Hence if temptation / devil was placed with Adam and Eve, likewise the devil / temptation will come to every human (what other reason for scripture like Rev 20:7?). We have a chance / privilege to be directly involved in toiling their hearts for Jesus and we will do so as we know they all have an equal and fair opportunity to come to Jesus....even if its Hitlers kid we adopted.

There is no evidence anywhere that God ever sends any baby to hell. I don't know where you come up with such a ludicrous notion--Calvin didn't even believe that. The first wicked king of Israel, Jeroboam, was placed under a curse that no descendent of his would be allowed to be buried (I Kings 14:11). Yet, in that family an infant is born and dies in infancy. Instead of the curse being passed on to this infant, notice what God's Word says (I Kings 14:13). Does that sound like God sends infants to hell? Calvin himself in the Institutes said he came to the conclusion that all infants who die in infancy must be of the elect and I tend to think that this passage in I Kings would more than suggest that. Read it and see if you understand it that way.

I don't understand what Rev. 20:7 has to anything that you have said.

Remember, I use to be an Arminian through and through. When I first heard any Calvinistic teaching I thought I would throw up. How in the world could anyone believe that stuff? I fought it tooth and nail. After I heard enough from a friend of mine, I set out on a six month journey to disprove it once and for all, and I did little else but study God's Word and read everything I could find on both sides of the question. I had Miley's Systematics which was the primiere Arminian volume at the time. I read the Wesley Brothers and even ploughed through Charles C. Finney's lectures and his idea of the "anxious seat." I finally came to the point where I not only realized I had been wrong, but also I had to admit that everything I thought about Calvinism was wrong. It is very evident to me that 99% of your criticism of Calvinism stems from a very wrong idea of what it is and what it teaches. Having been on both sides of this debate at one time or another in my life, I can tell you without any hesitation that you do not have a good understanding of what it teaches. You may think you do, and you may never come to the point where you embrace it as I did. But you don't have a good grasp of it in the first place and, as a result, your criticisms sound foolish to me. If you really want to attack Calvinism, do it by exegesis of the passages in the Scripture. Don't use these arguments about infants dying or Calvinsts don't believe in evangelism--we do. And don't try to say that we ignore some passage--we don't. If you really want to find out what Calvinism truly stands, I'd be more than happy to assist you whether or not you ever came to believe it.

 

[KingJ]

I am merely following the first line of Isaiah 1:18. Logic / reason = a good / fair / just / holy / righteous God is not going to be partial.

Would you believe in limited atonement if you never read it in some book or heard it from a preacher?

Look at how many Christians get side tracked by atheism because the intellectual arguments tickle their ears. I think that is what happens with many Christians today. Teaching limited atonement / God shows partiality is a message that does do damage to both the saved and unsaved. You would stumble young Christians with it. You have to try and see that.

 

[Jack Williamson]

There is nothing inconsistent with Isaiah 1:18 and particular redemption. Would I believe in a limited atonement without having heard it from a preacher? I did. Mt. 20:28 and Mk. 10:45 Christ said He gave his life for "many" a word never used for an all inclusive company. Paul specifically said Christ purchased "the church" by his own blood (Acts 20:28). These were the preachers I heard it from. The fact that you think that is somehow damaging to saved and unsaved supports, all the more, my theory that you have a very defective understanding of it. All the first generation of Reformers without exception: Luther, Knox, Calvin, Malancthon, Beza believed it. Did any of them damage saved and unsaved? William Carey, Adronium Judson, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Jonthan Edwards, John MacArthur, B.B. Warfield, Charles Hodge, Edward Clowney, they all believed in the doctrine of particular redemption. Are you suggesting that they all are damaging to the cause of Christ? Together those men have been responsible for the salvation of more people than you and I combined have ever met in our lifetimes. They have spread the Gospel to every continent on earth. Their ministries have led to the edification of thousands and the establishment of the Lord's work around the world. You think that is damaging somehow? I think you are having a knee jerk reaction based upon a very faulty understanding you got of this whole system. Let's continue this conversation. What on earth makes you think this damaging to saved and unsaved?

 

[KingJ]

You think that is damaging somehow? I think you are having a knee jerk reaction based upon a very faulty understanding you got of this whole system. Let's continue this conversation. What on earth makes you think this damaging to saved and unsaved?

I certainly hope I have got your message wrong. But I feel wikipedia has sufficiently explained it to me.

So the message.... ''Get on your knees, repent and turn from your wicked ways for God so loved the world that He sent His only beloved Son to die for some of you and me''....is not what you preach? Do I have it wrong? You can't see that causing offence?

As for those preachers....God will use anyone. All we need to do is read scripture. The Holy Spirit works on the scripture preached not so much our opinions. I imagine the line above was not taught at first . Which would make you / them dishonest / deceitful preachers. Either we preach the truth as 'For God so loved the world' or we edit the perceived error and preach 'For God so loved some of you'.

 

[Jack Williamson]

Can you tell me what specific topic you called up in Wikipedia? I'd like to see what you read. But, yes, you have that wrong! Do you realize that wikipedia is open to anyone to post their opinions on any given subject? It isn't like an academic and scholarly resource. Some of the entries on that board may be very accurate and very well researched and others may not be. It is simply human opinion; anyone's opinion.

You and I certainly agree that repentance is an essential ingredient in the Christian gospel. Without it, there is no gospel. People must believe upon Christ and turn from their wicked ways, or, as I understand the Scripture, they are not saved. I keep going back to the scene in Ezekiel 37 because I think it portrays the whole idea of evangelism (and I realize the immediate context has this as a picture of Israel being restored.) The bones in the valley were dead; there was no life in them at all. Ezekiel was commanded to preach to these dried, parched, dead bones and he did (I think I have faced that same audience at times). How were the bones able to respond to the Prophet's message? Did they come alive on their own because they decided to? Did they walk down front with "Just As I Am" playing in the background? Did they recite the sinner's prayer? God gave them life! There is no other possible answer. Man is also dead in sin (Eph. 2:1). As I've mentioned before, the Scripture says man can not understand the Word of God and is blind to the gospel and is dead. But some in humanity are of the elect and will come to Christ and others are not and will never believe in the Lord and will remain in their state of deadness. But we don't know who belongs to which group and that really doesn't matter nor is it any of our concern when it comes to evangelism. We have been commanded to preach the gospel to all people everywhere and invite sinners to believe upon the Lord of Glory, and God will honor his Word and save his people and those are the people who will believe in Him. He uses people like you and me to bring forth his Word and sometimes He transforms people in our audiences into new creatures in Christ using our presentation of the gospel. In my opinion, the only practical difference in our messages is this: you would indescriminately say to an audience of people, "Christ died for you." I would say to this same audience, "Christ died for people just like you." I'm only speculating, but other than that, I think our messages would be identical.

 

[KingJ]

Can you tell me what specific topic you called up in Wikipedia?

Calvinism

I'd like to see what you read. But, yes, you have that wrong! But some in humanity are of the elect and will come to Christ and others are not and will never believe in the Lord and will remain in their state of deadness.

Sounds like wikipedia and I have it right with that ''some'' and ''will never'' . Don't you realize that nobody would be saved if you witnessed to them truthfully about your belief as I quoted it in post #117.

The rest of your reply is on depravity. We can discuss that in your thread.