No greater love and limited atonement

[webdog]

Christ said that there is no greater love than for a man to give up his life for another (John 15:13).

If limited atonement is true (as defined by TULIP), Christ did not give up His life for the lost.

If my child or spouse never comes to faith in Christ, I will therefore exhibit a greater love for them than God as I would gladly give up my life for them.

Can man exhibit a greater (and greatest) attribute of God than God? In other words, it is possible for man to love another more than God does?

Christ also said that even the wicked care for their children (Matt. 7:9-10)

 

[jcjordan]

Christ said that there is no greater love than for a man to give up his life for another (John 15:13).

If limited atonement is true (as defined by TULIP), Christ did not give up His life for the lost.

If my child or spouse never comes to faith in Christ, I will therefore exhibit a greater love for them than God as I would gladly give up my life for them.

Can man exhibit a greater (and greatest) attribute of God than God? In other words, it is possible for man to love another more than God does?

You're leaving a lot out in your illustration. For beginners, TULIP teaches that He does give up his life for the lost. He gives up His life for those He chooses to save.
Secondly, why do you say God's love is His greatest attribute? Is that biblical or just the one you like the best? I admit it's up there high on my list too.
Thirdly, Would you give your life up for Osama Bin Laden too? You're forgetting about the state of enmity that man is in with God. Would you gladly be willing to give up your life for any single person in the world? How about a guy who raped your wife and murdered your kids? It's easy for us to say that we could die for someone who loves us already, but that's not how it is with God.

 

[RAdam]

Whoever Jesus died for (I say the elect only, you say all men universally), they were certainly lost and hellbound. If they weren't, why did they need Jesus to die for them? Furthermore, if they weren't lost and hellbound, what good would the death of Christ be for them? If they didn't need Him to pay for their sins, then His death for them is meaningless. Obviously this argument is a straw man.

 

[Jon-Marc]

I see that some believe that Christ only died for the "elect" (a chosen few). However, there are 16 verses in the New Testament that use the word "elect", and EVERY time it refers to those who are saved and not to the lost. The lost are NOT the elect, the saved are.

Therefore, the "elect" are those who are saved, and Christ came to seek and to save the lost. The Bible does not say He came to seek and to save the elect. "Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." Note the word "WHOSOEVER". That means ANYONE and not just a chosen few. Yes, there will be very few saved but not because God rejects the rest. It will be because most will reject Christ and will not come to Him and humble themselves.

God's love, mercy, and grace are not limited--so why should His atonement be limited?

 

[webdog]

You're leaving a lot out in your illustration. For beginners, TULIP teaches that He does give up his life for the lost. He gives up His life for those He chooses to save.

Now you are playing semantics games. You know I mean the eventual lost, the reprobate.

Secondly, why do you say God's love is His greatest attribute? Is that biblical or just the one you like the best? I admit it's up there high on my list too.

God IS love, it is the very nature of God. Everything from creation to the present stems from it.

Thirdly, Would you give your life up for Osama Bin Laden too? You're forgetting about the state of enmity that man is in with God. Would you gladly be willing to give up your life for any single person in the world? How about a guy who raped your wife and murdered your kids? It's easy for us to say that we could die for someone who loves us already, but that's not how it is with God.

You haven't dealt with my question yet, yours is hypothetical...mine occurs on a daily basis. The passage in question states that there is no greater love than giving up your life for someone. We are to strive to love perfectly (Matt. 5:48) as God does. What we may or may not do is irrelevant to what God has done in His perfect love (John 3:16). Romans 5:8 states that Christ has done just what you described...He has given up His life for His enemies, and He has commanded us to love our enemies. God commands us to do what falls in line with His holiness, He does not command us to do something we are uncapable of or refuses to do Himself pertaining to His nature. There are men dying in Afghanistan today for people like Fred Phelps.

Please answer the question. Thank you.

 

[webdog]

Whoever Jesus died for (I say the elect only, you say all men universally), they were certainly lost and hellbound. If they weren't, why did they need Jesus to die for them? Furthermore, if they weren't lost and hellbound, what good would the death of Christ be for them? If they didn't need Him to pay for their sins, then His death for them is meaningless. Obviously this argument is a straw man.

This is not dealing with the question in my OP. Since you say He died for the elect only, can you answer my question?

 

[RAdam]

When Jesus died for His people, they were lost. They were enemies. They were estranged from God and needed to be reconciled. You are creating a straw man argument against believers of particular redemption.

 

[RAdam]

Christ came to seek and to save that which was lost. I'm glad you brought that up. Jesus said He came to seek and to save. You read it as if He said He came to seek to save. That's not what He said. He came to seek them and to save them. Jesus' mission was to save that which the Father had given Him, and that's what He did. He laid down His life for His sheep, not the goats.

 

[webdog]

Two more posts...yet you fail to address my question in the OP. I don't wish to be taught about what limited atonement is, I know...please stick to the OP.

 

[webdog]

When Jesus died for His people, they were lost. They were enemies. They were estranged from God and needed to be reconciled. You are creating a straw man argument against believers of particular redemption.

Huh?!? I've created no such "strawman". Particular redemption has nothing to do with the scope of the atonement.

 

[RAdam]

I have addressed the problems with the OP. You say you know what particular redemption is. You do not. If you did, you wouldn't have stated this and made it the basis of the OP: "If limited atonement is true (as defined by TULIP), Christ did not give up His life for the lost." That is plain wrong and it is a straw man. Your whole OP is based on something that is not true.

Christ died for people who otherwise would have spent eternity in hell. The people He died for were by nature children of wrath, even as others. They were enemies of God, estranged from God, and needing righteousness and reconciliation.

 

[RAdam]

Huh?!? I've created no such "strawman". Particular redemption has nothing to do with the scope of the atonement.

Yes it does.

 

[webdog]

Atonement and redemption are not one in the same. Christ died for all even though all will not be redeemed.

If you are not going to answer the question I posed, please do not take this off topic.

Can a man love another man more than God? Can I love my wife or children more than God does?

 

[jcjordan]

Can a man love another man more than God? Can I love my wife or children more than God does?

Yes, because God is not an idol worshiper.

 

[RAdam]

Atonement and redemption are not one in the same. Christ died for all even though all will not be redeemed.

If you are not going to answer the question I posed, please do not take this off topic.

Can a man love another man more than God? Can I love my wife or children more than God does?

When I say "particular redemption" I am talking about the view that says, "Christ died only for a certain people chosen by the Father before the foundation of the world who are called 'elect' by the bible, and all of these people shall be saved eternally." In other words, particular redemption is another way of expressing the concept of limited atonement.

Regardless, I have stayed on topic. Your topic is based off of a wrong assertion. The assertion is: "If limited atonement is true (as defined by TULIP), Christ did not give up His life for the lost." That is plain wrong. The concept of particular redemption, or limited atonement, says that Christ died for the lost, the perishing, people who would have otherwise spent eternity in hell. What you've constructed is a straw man. One cannot answer your question based on the fact that it is based on an errant statement.

 

[webdog]

Yes, because God is not an idol worshiper.

I really would expect more from you than ridiculous statements. Loving another human makes you an idol worshiper? Come on! You always play these word games?

So there you have it...you have stated I can love my kids more than God does.

 

[webdog]

When I say "particular redemption" I am talking about the view that says, "Christ died only for a certain people chosen by the Father before the foundation of the world who are called 'elect' by the bible, and all of these people shall be saved eternally." In other words, particular redemption is another way of expressing the concept of limited atonement.

Regardless, I have stayed on topic. Your topic is based off of a wrong assertion. The assertion is: "If limited atonement is true (as defined by TULIP), Christ did not give up His life for the lost." That is plain wrong. The concept of particular redemption, or limited atonement, says that Christ died for the lost, the perishing, people who would have otherwise spent eternity in hell. What you've constructed is a straw man. One cannot answer your question based on the fact that it is based on an errant statement.

RAdam fails to answer the question instead trying to obfuscate using semantics games...any other takers?

 

[jcjordan]

I really would expect more from you than ridiculous statements. Loving another human makes you an idol worshiper? Come on! You always play these word ghttp://www.baptistboard.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1585802ames?

So there you have it...you have stated I can love my kids more than God does.

Yep. Psalm 11:5 comes to mind.
Loving another human can make you an idol worshiper...especially when that idol decides to leave and play for another team.

 

[RAdam]

RAdam fails to answer the question instead trying to obfuscate using semantics games...any other takers?

Your question is built off of a false statement. It isn't semantics, you charged those who adhere to the concept of limited atonement with believing something they do not believe and used that as the basis for your question. In other words, your question is invalid because it is based on something totally false. Fix the false basis of your question and then we'll deal with the question.

Consider if I did the same thing. Consider if I made a totally false statement about what believers in general (or universal) atonement hold to and then used that to formulate a question. You would challenge me on the false statement I made and used as the basis for my question, and you'd have every right to. It isn't semantics, it's wrong to falsely cast something like that.

 

[TCassidy]

Christ said that there is no greater love than for a man to give up his life for another (John 15:13).

True. Love as man sees love, not as God sees love. We are unable to comprehend the mind of God.

If limited atonement is true (as defined by TULIP), Christ did not give up His life for the lost.

Untrue. Limited Atonement does not mean it is limited in sufficiency or value. It means the Atonement is limited in its application.

If my child or spouse never comes to faith in Christ, I will therefore exhibit a greater love for them than God as I would gladly give up my life for them.

Untrue. You can't out love God.

Can man exhibit a greater (and greatest) attribute of God than God?

No.

In other words, it is possible for man to love another more than God does?

No.

Christ also said that even the wicked care for their children (Matt. 7:9-10)

True.

If the Atonement applies to all people everywhere without distinction how can a person whose sins have been atoned for ever go to hell?

If nobody can go to hell, then Christ lied when He talked about the souls of the lost being in hell.

If the Atonement is not limited to believers then salvation is universal, and universalism is a damnable heresy.

The problem is not with the doctrine of Limited Atonement. The problem is with your understanding of the doctrine of Limited Atonement.

Everybody, including you, limits the Atonement, unless you believe the devil is going to heaven too?