No greater love and limited atonement

[RAdam]

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?

Exactly. He says he gets it, but clearly he does not.

You also displayed why the phrase "limited atonement" is really a poor term. Everyone limits the atonement, except universalists. Terms like particular redemption, particular atonement, special atonement and such are better. Yet, limited atonement is far more commonplace.

 

[TCassidy]

Exactly. He says he gets it, but clearly he does not.

Rather like you and preservation?

 

[webdog]

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

We are to see it as God sees it.

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

Actually it means Christ did not die and appease God's wrath jucicially for all sin, but the sin of a few. It's limited in both sufficiency and scope.

Untrue. You can't out love God.

Well, if He states the greatest love is to give up your life for another, and He did not do it... but I would...that presents a problem.

No.

You say man cannot love another more than God, but I just showed what God considers the greatest show of love.

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

Who said "applies"? I said it was made on behalf of everybody but only is applied via faith. Limited Atonement states it was NOT made on behalf of everybody.

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

Strawman.

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

...and yet another. In the same way the atonement was made for the entire nation of Israel, not "all Israel is Israel".

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

I disagree. The problem is in you not understanding the scope of what the atonement is for.

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

Only if you are talking about the application of the atonement, not the sacrifice itself.

 

[The Archangel]

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?

There are several fallacies in these statements (and several of the others that have followed)

1. You believe that God's most pronounced characteristic is love.

In fact, love is only one of God's attributes. There are several passages in the Old Testament where God commands the Israelites to kill men, women, children, and even animals.

These episodes exhibit another of God's attributes: His justice. God's justice is exhibited in His judgment against sin and sinners.

Love and justice and a whole host of other immutable attributes co-exist in a co-equal way.

God is not defined by one attribute. Though one attribute seems (and it only seems that way) to take precedence from time to time, He must be defined by all of His attributes in total.

2. You are making the standard of God's love for man man's love for man.

In the John 15 passage, Jesus is clearly addressing His disciples. Now, by extension, He is addressing all believers (just as the command in Matt 28 to "make disciples" is not only for the 11 remaining disciples, but for all believers).

Jesus is talking about laying down His life for his disciples (friends in v. 13, 14). Jesus is not making this a blanket statement for all Jews or all peoples; He is addressing His disciples.

3. You assume mankind is foremost in God's affections.

Man is not foremost in God's affections. God is foremost in God's affections. God loves Himself and His own glory far more than He loves us. It is His grace that He included our salvation in the vindication of His own glory (the vindication having to take place because of His love and the subsequent passing over of sins of a few in the Old Testament)

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

1. You assume that everyone without exception is a child of God.

While mankind is created in God's image--and that has inherent qualities--after Adam and Eve were created, mankind (though still in God's image) was not "created" any longer. After Adam and Eve, mankind was pro-created and as a pro-created race we were brought forth in Adam's image. (See Genesis 5:3).

Therefore, we more closely resemble Adam (and all his inherent sinfulness) than we do God. We still bear the image of God (which is why the death penalty is instituted in Genesis 9. It would then be proper to say that Mankind as a race is created in God's image (to be His vice-regents...think "governor") and individuals are pro-created in Adam's image.

This is why Ephesians 2 calls us "dead in sin" and "sons of disobedience."

So, while all of your statements may not be strawmen, as has been suggested, your statements do betray your presuppositions and those presuppositions are problematic when dealing with a truly biblical theology.

The Archangel

 

[webdog]

1. You believe that God's most pronounced characteristic is love.

In fact, love is only one of God's attributes. There are several passages in the Old Testament where God commands the Israelites to kill men, women, children, and even animals.

These episodes exhibit another of God's attributes: His justice. God's justice is exhibited in His judgment against sin and sinners.

Love and justice and a whole host of other immutable attributes co-exist in a co-equal way.

God is not defined by one attribute. Though one attribute seems (and it only seems that way) to take precedence from time to time, He must be defined by all of His attributes in total.

I can say I agree with this. It's my opinion, and I should have clarified that, His dealing with mankind stems from love, justice included.

2. You are making the standard of God's love for man man's love for man.

In the John 15 passage, Jesus is clearly addressing His disciples. Now, by extension, He is addressing all believers (just as the command in Matt 28 to "make disciples" is not only for the 11 remaining disciples, but for all believers).

Jesus is talking about laying down His life for his disciples (friends in v. 13, 14). Jesus is not making this a blanket statement for all Jews or all peoples; He is addressing His disciples.

Since Jesus is both God and Man, I don't see how you can separate the two. You cannot claim He was speaking from a human standpoint and not from His divinity. The Father did just that in sacrificing His Son. He has shown us the greatest love, and Jesus gave a preview of this prior to it occurring.

3. You assume mankind is foremost in God's affections.

Man is not foremost in God's affections. God is foremost in God's affections. God loves Himself and His own glory far more than He loves us. It is His grace that He included our salvation in the vindication of His own glory (the vindication having to take place because of His love and the subsequent passing over of sins of a few in the Old Testament)

I haven't assumed that. "For God so loved the world that He..." How haven't you done the same thing in your assumption?

1. You assume that everyone without exception is a child of God.

I did no such thing. All children of God were at one point wicked and separated...His enemy.

While mankind is created in God's image--and that has inherent qualities--after Adam and Eve were created, mankind (though still in God's image) was not "created" any longer. After Adam and Eve, mankind was pro-created and as a pro-created race we were brought forth in Adam's image. (See Genesis 5:3).

Therefore, we more closely resemble Adam (and all his inherent sinfulness) than we do God. We still bear the image of God (which is why the death penalty is instituted in Genesis 9. It would then be proper to say that Mankind as a race is created in God's image (to be His vice-regents...think "governor") and individuals are pro-created in Adam's image.

This is why Ephesians 2 calls us "dead in sin" and "sons of disobedience."

This is not relevant to the discussion. Scripture states man is made in God's image. Our sinfulness is made in Adam's image.

So, while all of your statements may not be strawmen, as has been suggested, your statements do betray your presuppositions and those presuppositions are problematic when dealing with a truly biblical theology.

As in many of our discussions, I disagree. My "presuppositions" have been gleaned from Scripture and what God has told us.

 

[TCassidy]

We are to see it as God sees it.

Do you? You are claiming you can know the mind of God?

Actually it means Christ did not die and appease God's wrath jucicially for all sin, but the sin of a few. It's limited in both sufficiency and scope.

Wrong again. Read the Canons of the Synod of Dordt. "The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin, and is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world." So, again we see that the problem is that you don't understand Limited Atonement.

Well, if He states the greatest love is to give up your life for another, and He did not do it... but I would...that presents a problem.

You might brag and boast that you would, but in reality, you haven't.

You say man cannot love another more than God, but I just showed what God considers the greatest show of love.

Yes, but so far you have not done so.

Who said "applies"? I said it was made on behalf of everybody but only is applied via faith.

Again it is plain that you don't understand the Atonement.

Limited Atonement states it was NOT made on behalf of everybody.

It means it is not applied to everybody.

Strawman.

In other words you can't give a cogent answer because you don't really understand the Atonement.

...and yet another.

Yes, again you fail to formulate a cogent argument.

In the same way the atonement was made for the entire nation of Israel, not "all Israel is Israel".

So, all always means "all people without exception?"

I disagree. The problem is in you not understanding the scope of what the atonement is for.

Of the two of us I am the one who has taught Systematic Theology at the Seminary level for the past 25 years.

Only if you are talking about the application of the atonement, not the sacrifice itself.

You have confused the death/sacrifice of Christ with the Atonement.

 

[jbh28]

We are to see it as God sees it.
Actually it means Christ did not die and appease God's wrath jucicially for all sin, but the sin of a few. It's limited in both sufficiency and scope.

As I understand the doctrine as Calvinist teach it, they would say it is sufficient for all mankind. Sufficient for all, efficient for the elect. We need to be careful not to misrepresent the doctrine you disagree with. If it is wrong, one should be able to accurately say what it is and say why they disagree with it.

Well, if He states the greatest love is to give up your life for another, and He did not do it... but I would...that presents a problem.

apples and oranges. You would die to save your wife's life, as would I. Jesus died in our place of punishment. We have to remember that hell is punishment for sinners that we ALL deserve. It's not that Jesus is saving us from hell like we would save someone from something dangerous, Jesus is paying the price for our sin that we would be paying in an eternal hell.


Let me ask you this. Would you send your wife or children to hell? All those that reject Christ will spend eternity in hell. If your child disobeyed you and they refused to repent, would you send them to hell?

Hell is a place for sinners. It is punishment. God will send them there to pay for their sins. God is under no obligation to save anyone. Your argument acts like God is obligated to save and He is not.

 

[jrscott]

Limited Atonement in it's actual historic sense can be understood by means of one of Jesus' parables (although it is not the actual interpretation of the parable - just provides a good illustration).

Mt. 13.44 - The man is looking through a field and he finds a treasure hidden in the field. Therefore, he rehides it, and goes and sells all he has and buys the field, thus buying the treasure.

Okay, did the man actually buy the field? Yes. Therefore, he does in fact own the field. However, what is the object of his buying the field? To buy the treasure.

There is a real sense in that Jesus did die for the entire world. This is the basis of his love for the whole world (lost and elect) as well as his genuine call for repentance for the entire world. Further, this is the basis for some things that I believe are more "universal aspects" of the atonement (common grace, restraining of sins, etc). This is also the truth elaborated in Phil. 2 and others in which every knee will bow to His Lordship.

However, the object, purpose, and design of His death was only to cover the sins of the elect. Therefore, the argument here is not one of sufficiency, ability of the atonement, or even the love of God. On the other hand, the question is one of purpose, design, and actual application. This is what Limited Atonement teaches. I would suggest reading some better sources on the subject and become more familiar with the classic, historic expression of the doctrine. Hodge provides a great overview, as well as Berkhoff. If you really want to delve into it, check out The Atonement Controversy, by Owen Thomas. (aval. at Banner of Truth)

Randy

 

[jrscott]

Something else to keep in mind about all five points, really - but especially LA - is that even among Calvinists there is disagreement concerning the precise nuances of the doctrines. Therefore, that makes it a little precarious to say "Calvinists teach" or "Limited Atonement says..."

When someone says, "I am a 5 pointer (or 4, or whatever)," what they are actually saying is "I hold to a certain understanding of the 5 points." Even the example I just gave in the last post (the purchase of the field) will meet with disagreement on behalf of some. That's okay, because we have been trying to understand these issues for centuries.

It does someone really good to read the historical literature on the subject. It is rich and vast.

Randy

 

[webdog]

Do you? You are claiming you can know the mind of God?

I have the "mind of Christ" (1 Cor. 2:26)...do you?

Wrong again. Read the Canons of the Synod of Dordt. "The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin, and is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world." So, again we see that the problem is that you don't understand Limited Atonement.

I guess my problem is I hold the Bible at a higher authority than the Canons of the Synod of Dordt.

You might brag and boast that you would, but in reality, you haven't.

As a husband, I'm commanded to and would. It's not "bragging and boasting", it's what a husband is to do for his wife. Read Ephesians lately?

Yes, but so far you have not done so.

Actually I did.

Again it is plain that you don't understand the Atonement.

I have a good grasp on the atonement, that's why I'm not a calvinist.

It means it is not applied to everybody.

Apparently you don't know your own parties view on the atonement.

Yes, again you fail to formulate a cogent argument.

There is no argument to a strawman.

So, all always means "all people without exception?"

Red herring. When did I ever say that?

Of the two of us I am the one who has taught Systematic Theology at the Seminary level for the past 25 years.

Now who's bragging and boasting? Last time I checked I had the same Holy Spirit within.

You have confused the death/sacrifice of Christ with the Atonement.

I haven't confused anything. No death, no atonement.

 

[webdog]

As I understand the doctrine as Calvinist teach it, they would say it is sufficient for all mankind. Sufficient for all, efficient for the elect. We need to be careful not to misrepresent the doctrine you disagree with. If it is wrong, one should be able to accurately say what it is and say why they disagree with it.

I've read the definition from many reformed. It tends to be different depending on who you talk to, but I have yet to see a reformer say Christ died for all mankind.

apples and oranges. You would die to save your wife's life, as would I. Jesus died in our place of punishment.

I don't think so. Giving up one's life for another is the issue, out of love. The reason is secondary.

Let me ask you this. Would you send your wife or children to hell? All those that reject Christ will spend eternity in hell. If your child disobeyed you and they refused to repent, would you send them to hell?

Now THATS apples to oranges A more accurate analogy would be as a judge, would I send my son to prison if he were guilty of a crime. Although I love him, justice demands I do just that.

Hell is a place for sinners. It is punishment. God will send them there to pay for their sins. God is under no obligation to save anyone. Your argument acts like God is obligated to save and He is not.

He is obligated to save those of faith since it's His requirement. People don't go to hell to pay for their sins...a finite man can never repay an infinite God for an infinte crime committed against Him. That leaves God eternally unpaid for the crime. That is the point of Christ being the only one who CAN repay and appease God's wrath ultimately leading to true justice being had.

The following is from a fellow BB member Allan. He did a good job of explaining the scope of the atonement, so I'll just copy it below...

1 John 2:2 states He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world. You need to go back and see how John uses "whole world" in his letters. He always means "all sinful mankind" in his usage. While John does use the term 'world often and it has 3 basic meanings and of those three 'base' meanings variations of them can be noted. (1) World (as in earth itself), (2) Geographically specific to a place or world system (ie. Roman world), and (3) all sinful wicked men.

*NOTE* World NEVER refers to believers. A word can not have two contradicting meanings (ie. yes can not mean both yes and no. Just as saved does not mean both saved and lost) Believers are not of this world, we are called to be seperate from the world and to come out from amoung the world, ect.. and at the same time be said to 'be the world'.

The OT established the meanings and the NT continued it and does not contradict it. When scripture is speaking of the spiritual state of people the term 'world' always refers to the sinful wicked men. John also used the phrase 'whole world' and while it's meaning regarding the spiritual state of men does not change it's scope does. Just for review here is everytime John uses this particular phrase:
Quote:
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.

1Jo 5:19 [And] we know that we are of God, a\nd the whole world lieth in wickedness.

Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Rev 16:14 For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, [which] go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.

It is of note that John uses the phrase 'whole world' four times, twice in two different books he writes. In each instance we plainly see that John holds this phrase to be used in only one way - whole world = sinful wicked men. The term 'whole world' encompasses not only the gentiles, in which the term 'world' alread speaks to, but 'whole world' includes both the Jews and Gentiles as one group instead of Christ dying only for those of the Jewish Nation

 

[The Archangel]

As a husband, I'm commanded to and would. It's not "bragging and boasting", it's what a husband is to do for his wife. Read Ephesians lately?

Webdog,

There is much smugness, biting, and sniping in this post (which I have chosen not to deal with) that has been gloriously absent from your most recent postings. I would, however, like to address the above statement.

As husbands, we are commanded to love our own wives as Christ loves the church. But herein lies the problem: You claim to be willing to lay down your life, sacrificially for your wife--which is awesome and commendable (may we all be willing and able if/when the time comes).

However, you are not required and you probably would not lay down your life for someone else's wife.

This is the essence of what we are discussing in limited atonement. We (who hold to LA) say that Christ died for His bride--the church. Not all humanity.

If anything, Ephesians (especially chapter 2:11-22) is showing that God is building a new humanity out of all peoples--Jews and Gentiles. This new humanity--Christians (those who believe in Christ)--was chosen before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4).

So, it is the case that you are suggesting that Christ did not die only for the church when we are told in Ephesians that it is only for the Church that He did, in fact, die--He gave Himself up for "her," the Church. Notice it is not said that it is not said that He died for all humanity.

Hopefully, that will be food for thought.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[TCassidy]

I have the "mind of Christ" (1 Cor. 2:26)...do you?

That, of course, was not the question. Why do you duck and dodge to avoid an honest answer to the question? Do you know the mind of God? Yes or no.

I guess my problem is I hold the Bible at a higher authority than the Canons of the Synod of Dordt.

No, your problem is with being honest. Nobody suggested the Canons of Dordt are superior to the bible. You made a false claim about what Calvinists believe and I posted the quote from the Canons that proved your statement was false. Since you were caught in a false statement, and seem to lack the honesty and integrity to admit your error, you revert to the lying insinuation that I have greater respect for the writings of men then the word of God. Shame on you for that lack of intellectual honesty.

As a husband, I'm commanded to and would.

As a Christian you are commanded to "sin not." But you still sin. Your obedience is incomplete, and as you have not yet given your life for anyone or anything the probability of your future obedience is still far from sure.

It's not "bragging and boasting", it's what a husband is to do for his wife.

The husband is to give himself in life, not in death, for his wife.

Read Ephesians lately?

Yes, and it would seem of the two of us I am the one who actually understands it.

I have a good grasp on the atonement, that's why I'm not a calvinist.

It is obvious from your silly statements that you either do not understand the Atonement or you are lying. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming your are simply ignorant.

I can't help but notice you still have not answered my question, "How can a person whose sins have been atoned for ever go to hell?"

Apparently you don't know your own parties view on the atonement.

I quoted from the Canons of Dordt. It is you who lied about the scope and value of the atonement. I pointed that out and you keep ducking and dodging but can't come up with an answer so you make the false claim of "strawman."

There is no argument to a strawman.

Another example of your not being able to answer so you make false claims.

Red herring.

And again.

When did I ever say that?

Go back and read your posts.

Now who's bragging and boasting?

I have not claimed perfect obedience in areas I have never been tested.

Last time I checked I had the same Holy Spirit within.

Yes, so every Christian has exactly the same level of biblical knowledge as every other Christian? If so why did Paul so foolishly say, "Study to show yourself approved unto God?"

I haven't confused anything. No death, no atonement.

Another proof that you have failed to understand. Because one leads to the other does not make them equal.

 

[Robert Snow]

To argue with a Calvinist is futile. Don't even try. If they cannot see the plain teachings of Scripture that says that Christ died for the world, it is hopeless to try to get them to see the error of this particular doctrine.

When someone at church starts talking this nonsense, I just smile and enjoy watching them attempt to fit this false belief into the teachings of Scripture.

After many years you just hear the same old semantics over and over again. Now if you really want to anger them, just quote the Scripture and watch their reaction.

 

[Winman]

Webdog said;

He is obligated to save those of faith since it's His requirement. People don't go to hell to pay for their sins...a finite man can never repay an infinite God for an infinte crime committed against Him. That leaves God eternally unpaid for the crime. That is the point of Christ being the only one who CAN repay and appease God's wrath ultimately leading to true justice being had.

I agree with you Webdog. I think it is ridiculous when Calvinists say God is not obligated to save anyone.

If I was by a swimming pool and saw a small child fall in and begin to drown, and I am a good swimmer, am I obligated to jump in and try to save the child? Of course. And even if I could not swim, I could attempt to throw a life preserver in, or hold out a stick or tree-limb they could grab, or at the very least run and try to find someone who could save the child.

But Calvinists teach that God is under no such obligation. God can sit back and watch men perish. And most incredibly, they teach that God does this for his pleasure. If I watched this child drown when I could have easily helped them, I would be judged by the world as a very wicked, sick, and depraved person, but Calvinists teach God can act like this and it is no sin.

And Calvinists see no problem with this view. Astounding.

If that is not misrepresenting the God of the Bible who gave his only Son to save us, I do not know what is.

 

[jbh28]

Webdog said;



I agree with you Webdog. I think it is ridiculous when Calvinists say God is not obligated to save anyone.

So who put God under this obligation? Sorry, but God was not obligated to save anyone. The difference is that now God has said he would save through faith. Now, because of the obligation He has placed on himself, he is obligated to saved. But without God putting himself there, He was under no obligation to save.

If I was by a swimming pool and saw a small child fall in and begin to drown, and I am a good swimmer, am I obligated to jump in and try to save the child? Of course. And even if I could not swim, I could attempt to throw a life preserver in, or hold out a stick or tree-limb they could grab, or at the very least run and try to find someone who could save the child.

Not even close to the same. Hell is not like a swimming pool. Hell is a place God sends people because of their sin. Hell is the deserved punishment. You and I both deserve Hell. God in his mercy saved us, but he didn't have to. He could have given us both what we deserved, but He didn't. He sent His Son Jesus to die in our place. He promised to save those that believe, but He didn't have to make that promise.

But Calvinists teach that God is under no such obligation. God can sit back and watch men perish.

God is the one sending them there. It's punishment.

And most incredibly, they teach that God does this for his pleasure.

don't know of any Calvinist that teaches this.

If I watched this child drown when I could have easily helped them, I would be judged by the world as a very wicked, sick, and depraved person, but Calvinists teach God can act like this and it is no sin.

So, if you saw a child drowning and you said, believe me and the child said no, would you let the child drown? You see how your argument isn't the same?

And Calvinists see no problem with this view. Astounding.

They do have a problem with you misrepresenting of the doctrine. If they are wrong, you don't need to misrepresent.

If that is not misrepresenting the God of the Bible who gave his only Son to save us, I do not know what is.

It is misrepresent the doctrine. Again, if Calvinists are wrong, you should be able to represent the doctrine accurately and not continue to say things that you know are not true.

Let me repeat again. Is God now obligated to save? Yes, those that believe because He said that He would. Was God obligated to say that? No, he could have let every man die in his willful sin and go to hell. Saying God is obligated to save is saying that somehow we deserved our salvation.

 

[TCassidy]

To argue with a Calvinist is futile. Don't even try. If they cannot see the plain teachings of Scripture that says that Christ died for the world, it is hopeless to try to get them to see the error of this particular doctrine.

The problem with your objection is that Calvinists DO see that.

When someone at church starts talking this nonsense, I just smile and enjoy watching them attempt to fit this false belief into the teachings of Scripture.

When someone at your church starts talking about the gospel you tune it out?

After many years you just hear the same old semantics over and over again. Now if you really want to anger them, just quote the Scripture and watch their reaction.

Another silly, empty, argument. We are the ones who quote the scripture. You are the ones who cannot respond to it.

 

[jbh28]

I've read the definition from many reformed. It tends to be different depending on who you talk to, but I have yet to see a reformer say Christ died for all mankind.

4 pointers would, but there is a difference in dying for and the sufficiency of the death. I don't know of any Calvinist that says that the death of Christ wasn't sufficient to save all. It is limited in its intent, God came to save his elect. That was the purpose, though it is sufficient.

I'm still working through this one my self, but want to accuratly portray the doctrine.

I don't think so. Giving up one's life for another is the issue, out of love. The reason is secondary.

The difference is that you and I deserve hell. God would be perfectly right in sending us to hell. Per winman's example, it would be bad if we allowed someone to drown if we could help. But it isn't wrong for God to punish sinners. So when God saves anyone, it is an act of mercy. He wasn't obligated, except now that He has promised. But He didn't have to make that promise.

Now THATS apples to oranges A more accurate analogy would be as a judge, would I send my son to prison if he were guilty of a crime. Although I love him, justice demands I do just that.

Agreed, better example. Are you obligated to pay the penalty for your son? Now, if you promised to pay the penalty, you would be. If you told your son to believe you, and you would pay, then you would then be obligated. Same thing with God. God isn't obligated to save us. He is perfectly just in giving us our deserved punishment.

He is obligated to save those of faith since it's His requirement. People don't go to hell to pay for their sins...a finite man can never repay an infinite God for an infinte crime committed against Him. That leaves God eternally unpaid for the crime. That is the point of Christ being the only one who CAN repay and appease God's wrath ultimately leading to true justice being had.

The wages of sin is death. People do go to hell because they are sinners. It is a place of punishment. Yes, God is now obligated to save because He said he would, but he didn't have to say that. He could have just let us all die in our sins.

*NOTE* World NEVER refers to believers. A word can not have two contradicting meanings (ie. yes can not mean both yes and no.

Um, yes it can. It's called an antagonym.
here's a list of them
http://www.usingenglish.com/glossary/antagonym.html
world can mean the worldly system and it can mean people. Be not of the world is not saying be not of the people(we are people in the world) but not of the wordy system.

*NOTE* World NEVER refers to believers.

- So Christ didn't die for believers? Are believers not part of the world(in the sense of the people)?

To argue with a Calvinist is futile. Don't even try. If they cannot see the plain teachings of Scripture that says that Christ died for the world, it is hopeless to try to get them to see the error of this particular doctrine.

That's a good idea.

Lets see the Scriptures that say that the purpose of the atonement was to die for the whole world. I believe we all agree that it is sufficient to save all but only efficient for the elect(those that believe or will believe). But do we have any that say God died for the unelect. Do we have any that say that God died for the elect. Do we have any that say God died for every single person, thought knowing that many would reject Him?

 

[Winman]

So who put God under this obligation? Sorry, but God was not obligated to save anyone. The difference is that now God has said he would save through faith. Now, because of the obligation He has placed on himself, he is obligated to saved. But without God putting himself there, He was under no obligation to save.

God said he is not willing any should perish. By his own nature he is obligated to save everyone he can. Can God deny himself?

2 Pet 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Not even close to the same. Hell is not like a swimming pool. Hell is a place God sends people because of their sin. Hell is the deserved punishment. You and I both deserve Hell. God in his mercy saved us, but he didn't have to. He could have given us both what we deserved, but He didn't. He sent His Son Jesus to die in our place. He promised to save those that believe, but He didn't have to make that promise.

How can a person be responsible for sin if they are born dead in sin? Do we punish blind people because they are born blind? Do we beat a person who was born crippled because they cannot walk?

By your doctrine, man has no control whatsoever. He cannot choose God. God has all the power to easily save every man but chooses to let billions upon billions of men die as sinners and be tortured forever in hell. This is worse than watching a child fall in a pool and drown, it is equivalent to pushing them in, and then holding them under when they try to come up for air.

I am sorry, but this doctrine is plain sick, and anybody who cannot see that is not firing on all cylinders.

 

[quantumfaith]

Yes, because God is not an idol worshiper.

What in the world kind of answer is this?