Have you seen this video or DVD? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ue21...alcNQcEcaiXC-VkeZJGvKX1mPNI5luD58jODi2WbBadz_ Whats your thoughts?
Last edited by a moderator:
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Jesus Christ's Limited Atonement?
- Thread starter Jedi Knight
- Start date
Yes Limited Atonement with unlimited Election. Christ died for his sheep and He calls who He will to come to Him. I see it as Mark Driscoll does calling it unlimited limited atonement explained here http://www.marshillchurch.org/media/christ-on-the-cross/unlimited-limited-atonement much better than I could
Last edited by a moderator:
Thoughts?
Well.. biblically the Atonement was not limited but it's application is.
The atonement or propitiation is applied only by faith, thus without the excercising of faith there is no application of the atonement which was made. (Rom 3:25), and He is the propitiation for both ours and the whole world (1 John 2:2)
Christ had to full the Law and the law mandated that the sacrifice for atonement was to be for the entire nation of Israel. Now this begs the question - was all of Israel saved then? By no means for the propitiation though made was only applieed by faith to those who would believe. YET - it was made for ALL of Israel (that means even those who would not believe). Christ took it farther than just Israel being the True lamb of God His atonement encompassed the whole world. Thus He is not our propitiation only but for the whole world.
There is alot that goes into this, like the blood that was shed was also poured out at the foot of the alter where people trod on top of it. We see a picture of this in scripture Heb 10:29 of those who trample under foot Christ and the 'blood' of his sacrifice/covenant and thus doing 'dispite to' the Spirit of Grace.
Ok, this is weird. My post that posted was my orginal but I clicked the 'preview button' and changed it almost completely. Then when I when I submitted my reply it posted my original though not posted post?? :BangHead:
Here is what I wrote about:
1st. Many of those who hold to the 'doctrines of grace' do not hold to the 'L'.
2nd. Many of those who hold to the 'doctrines of grace' do not agree with regeneration preceding faith. (ex. Geisler, Millard J. Erickson - both Systematic Theology book writer, and if I'm not mistake D. Akin also).
3rd. Their usage in the video of 'free-will' is speaking to libertarian free-will (which is Pelaganism).
4th. They are actually addressing specifically Arminians excludes others. Even though Calvinist make the error of placing everyone else in that catagory they do not in fact belong.
5th. In the video they forget their own doctrines regarding salvation, that being man can not and will not be saved by God until he believes. Thus salvation in the Calvinistic view is in fact still dependant upon mans responce to God. God can and does do everything to bring man to that choice and God saves man - yet man must believe that he might be saved by God.
IOW - It is much the same old tired arguments and misrepresentation of views (mostly because they lump them all together when they are miles apart) that are typical in the age old debate. Thus it is much akin to Dave Hunts work in relation to his understanding of the Calvinistic views that he lumps together and misrepresents as well.
Here is what I wrote about:
1st. Many of those who hold to the 'doctrines of grace' do not hold to the 'L'.
2nd. Many of those who hold to the 'doctrines of grace' do not agree with regeneration preceding faith. (ex. Geisler, Millard J. Erickson - both Systematic Theology book writer, and if I'm not mistake D. Akin also).
3rd. Their usage in the video of 'free-will' is speaking to libertarian free-will (which is Pelaganism).
4th. They are actually addressing specifically Arminians excludes others. Even though Calvinist make the error of placing everyone else in that catagory they do not in fact belong.
5th. In the video they forget their own doctrines regarding salvation, that being man can not and will not be saved by God until he believes. Thus salvation in the Calvinistic view is in fact still dependant upon mans responce to God. God can and does do everything to bring man to that choice and God saves man - yet man must believe that he might be saved by God.
IOW - It is much the same old tired arguments and misrepresentation of views (mostly because they lump them all together when they are miles apart) that are typical in the age old debate. Thus it is much akin to Dave Hunts work in relation to his understanding of the Calvinistic views that he lumps together and misrepresents as well.
"Many"?! Than they are not Calvinists -- plain and simple. It's nonsensical to be known as a Calvinist and yet deny particular redemption.
Again, "many"?! Aside from Pastor Larry here, who claims to be a Calvinist yet says that regeneration precedes faith?
I think you need have redefined the word "many".
Many does not necessate the majority but it can also mean a grouping. Example - "There are many people in America who are farmers".
You might 'think' it is nonsensical, and yet they exsist and have existed.
TCGreek is another one, at least the last thing he stated was that he was leaning greatly this way along with men like Millard Erickson who wrote "Christian Theology" and others like Norm Geisler. But they are not the only ones either.
Last edited by a moderator:
"Many" may claim to be Calvinists, but in comparison with historical theology they differ.The "many" you refer to are really few in number. I don't know of any professing Calvinist for instance who denies any of the Calvinistic Canons of Dort. A watered-down Calvinist would be Amyraldian -- not a true Calvinist.
It's a rare species of bird.
TCGreek is another one, at least the last thing he stated was that he was leaning greatly this way along with men like Millard Erickson who wrote "Christian Theology" and others like Norm Geisler. But they are not the only ones either.
This is in reference to those professing Calvinists who think that faith preceeds regeneration.
I didn't remember that about TCG.
I respect Erickson much more than Geisler on the subject of Calvinism. The latter is particularly dishonest. And there is not a whit of distinction between his theology and that of the run-of-the-mill evangelical Arminian today. Being a "Moderate Calvinist" is bunk.
If you see the whole program,it show alot of church history thats rather interesting.
Hadn't seen it before. Thanks for sharing.
Unless one is a universalist (that all go to heaven), then (whether you've thought about it or not) you believe in a limited atonement.
The question is then is the atonement limited by design (Calvinism) or by chance (Arminianism).
The DVD is called "Amazing Grace,The History & Theology of Calvinism"
Limited Atonement is a doctrine offered in answer to the question, "for whose sins did Christ atone?" The Bible teaches that Christ died for those whom God gave him to save (John 17:9). Christ died, indeed, for many people, but not all (Matthew 26:28). Specifically, Christ died for the invisible Church -- the sum total of all those who would ever rightly bear the name "Christian" (Ephesians 5:25).
This doctrine often finds many objections, mostly from those who think that Limited Atonement does damage to evangelism. We have already seen that Christ will not lose any that the father has given to him (John 6:37). Christ's death was not a death of potential atonement for all people. Believing that Jesus' death was a potential, symbolic atonement for anyone who might possibly, in the future, accept him trivializes Christ's act of atonement. Christ died to atone for specific sins of specific sinners. Christ died to make holy the church. He did not atone for all men, because obviously all men are not saved. Evangelism is actually lifted up in this doctrine, for the evangelist may tell his congregation that Christ died for sinners, and that he will not lose any of those for whom he died!
This doctrine often finds many objections, mostly from those who think that Limited Atonement does damage to evangelism. We have already seen that Christ will not lose any that the father has given to him (John 6:37). Christ's death was not a death of potential atonement for all people. Believing that Jesus' death was a potential, symbolic atonement for anyone who might possibly, in the future, accept him trivializes Christ's act of atonement. Christ died to atone for specific sins of specific sinners. Christ died to make holy the church. He did not atone for all men, because obviously all men are not saved. Evangelism is actually lifted up in this doctrine, for the evangelist may tell his congregation that Christ died for sinners, and that he will not lose any of those for whom he died!
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: Not so according to the Word of God. 1Jo 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: Mt 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
How does this verse support the false notion that Christ did not die for the sins of all people? Scripture states that He did die for all. Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
Are you going to tell us that ‘the world’ really means only ‘the elect?’
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: I do not believe in a limited atonement and I am no universalist. From the post of Allen’s I would say that it would be a fair assumption to believe that he does not limit the atonement and is no universalist either.
I do not understand your ‘chance’ statement either. First, I know of no Arminians that limit the atonement as you suggest they must. Are their any Arminians out there that would limit the atonement as FOS suggests you do, and if so would you mind sharing your thoughts on the issue?