Featured Why so much Angst About Limited atonement?

Trust me...he doesn't, and won't...unless man has final say, then a sinner will never be saved...

 

Unfortunately yup!

 

Just remember it is Jesus who said it. I'll side with Him. You can argue with Him if you like.

Yes, biblical limited atonement just as Jesus said. Not Calvinism's manmade version.

 

Well it is simple, but it is the Calvinist that wants to complicate things.

This is rather a childish and ridiculous answer to give.
Let me demonstrate: The suit that I wore today, is it black or white? You only have two choices.
Why does the Calvinist put forward such a ridiculous argument when there are more than two choices. I personally have blue and grey to wear as well (but not white).
Obviously there are not "just two choices as you affirm."

Some claim that. But that is not necessarily true.

That is not true. That forgiveness, that gift of salvation, that pardon must be accepted. It can be rejected, and most often is. It must be accepted before it is effected.

There are cases in history where are pardons have been refused.

 

Good point.

We know that no single doctrine exists independent of its greater theology. The Synergist cannot believe in Definite Atonement because their greater theology prohibits it. If they were to believe in D.A. then their view of man having a self-autonomous free will collapses. This in itself is not a convincing argument for D.A., it is just an acknowledgement that the Synergist system is dependent on Universal Atonement. It is the only atonement view that allows man to retain his freedom of choice in salvation; i.e. "Synergism".

 

It works the other way around as well. The monergist is absolutely dependent on Limited Atonement. He must dismiss all Scripture that involves with free will, or redefine the terminology used such as he does in John 3:16. Everything must be interpreted in the light of a Limited Atonement or the entire TULIP collapses.

That is why the Calvinist has no good answer for Luke 23:33,34.
God simply wasted his time praying for those who were headed to eternal damnation asking for their forgiveness. What nonsense!
However, had they freewill they could of their own will rejected the offer which God foreknew they would (1Pet.1:2)

Here is another scripture to wrestle with:
Rom 9:1-3
(1) I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,
(2) That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart.
(3) For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
--Here Paul expresses a great love for the nation of Israel. In fact it is so great that he wishes he could trade places with them: his salvation for theirs. He is willing to be damned if the nation could be saved. How great love is this! It is incomprehensible.
Does Paul have greater love than God himself, who "is love"? That is almost a blasphemous question to ask.
And yet, looking at it from a Calvinist view point one would have to say "yes."
God only has love for a select few. For the rest there is no love. Just as "Esau have I hated," he has predestined for an eternity in the Lake of Fire. There never was any love for the non-elect.
But with Paul, his love is very great for the entire nation, most of whom are not the elect. The only answer to this enigma is the truth expressed in 1Tim.2:4,
1Ti 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
--It is not all kinds of people, but all people to be saved. That is his will that is expressed in this verse, and in many other verses throughout the scriptures.
Just as Paul had a love for all the nation of Israel to be saved,
so God has a love for all men to be saved.

 

:laugh::laugh::laugh:good one

 

If propitiation is properly understood, there are only two choices.

Forgiveness is based on something, namely the substitutionary death of Christ, bearing God's wrath in our place. God doesn't just "write off" sin; sin must be punished. Once sin is punished in Christ on the cross, there is no more payment to be made.

Biblical Theology never makes a case or cites a case where something must be accepted. In fact, God chose and blessed Abraham (Abram, at the time) while he was still an idol worshiper. The full-force of Biblical Theology is that Abraham (and others) are accepted and blessed before their faith is placed in God.

But, back to propitiation, the word and its meaning and use say nothing of it having to be accepted to have efficacy. The only efficacy of propitiation (as it is related to Christ) is that He has borne God's wrath in out place and He makes the payment for sin to God. Since that's the meaning of propitiation, He's either paid God for the sins of everyone or the elect. If the sins of everyone have been paid for, then everyone will be saved. It really is that simple.

At this point, it's the non-Calvinist that does all manner of gymnastics to put man in the decisive position of "accepting" or "rejecting" as far as the efficacy of the death of Christ is concerned.

The Archangel

 

Your argument hangs by a thin thread.
Naomi went down into Moab. Why did Ruth return and Orpah stayed. Why?
It was their respective choices.

Joshua led the nation of Israel into the promised land. Out of all the inhabitants of the city of Jericho, was there just one person--Rahab the harlot--who had heard of them and their testimony? No, I believe that many had internet and TV in those days and had kept up with current events. They knew Israel was coming and what the God of Israel already done. Rahab testified: WE have heard...
But, by choice, Rahab believed while others CHOSE not to. Why?

God does not force man to make decisions for him. But he does give them the will to choose good. Ruth and Rahab are both examples of that.

 

You seem to be totally ignorant of the fact that Jesus said, "Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men".

 

I am in no way ignorant of this.

The Archangel

 

Pastor, please do not disregard his High Priestly prayer before He was taken to be crucified.

These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:
2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.
5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.
7 Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee.
8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.
9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.

Christ’s prayer on the cross was for the Elect, not for the world (the non-elect).

His prayer had an immediate effect:

And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God.

The Father always answers Christ’s prayers:

Then they took away the stone from the place where the dead was laid. And Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said, Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me.
42 And I knew that thou hearest me always: but because of the people which stand by I said it, that they may believe that thou hast sent me.

Had Christ been praying for the world, one of two things would be true:

1. Christ contradicted His John 17 prayer.

2. The world would have forgiveness of sins.

Conclusion:

1. Christ never contradicts Himself.

2. The world does not have forgiveness of sins.

Therefore, Christ was praying for the Elect given Him by the Father.

 

There is nothing true about this. Had Jesus prayed for the non elect on the cross it would have had nothing to do with His prayer in the garden. What you have done is committed the question begging fallacy.

 

Please read the entire prayer. It was for all who would come and believe on Him:

Joh 17:20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
Joh 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

He was one of many. Of course whosoever will may come to Jesus.

What did Christ say:
Joh 17:20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
Joh 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
--The opposite of what you said he prayed.

Was forgiveness offered to the world? Absolutely!

Does that mean that everyone in the world was forgiven? no, not at all.

Salvation is a gift. It needs to be received and it can be rejected. Much of the time it is.
"For the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

 

That is, the elect.

That is, the elect.

 

Amen, its all for whom Christ died, they shall believe and or Live by Faith, for the Just shall live by Faith, thats a Promise ! And everyone Christ died for was made Just Rom 5:19 !

 

Then please explain how this fits into your theology. Remember, your claim is that Jesus' atonement paid ONLY for ALL the sins the elect has committed. For this to be true, the passage would have to be interpreted as....

"Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto the elect: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto the elect".

 

Like you're doing with the living water thing, you're doing violence to the context of a particular passage.

But, in the example you cited, Jesus says a certain sin will not be forgiven. Therefore, the atonement is limited in some respect.

The Archangel

 

And you still haven't explained the passage as seen through Calvinism's lens. Just ignore it, like the living water is ignored.

 

I'm beginning to think you have a reality problem...

We've dealt with the living water thing, you just didn't like what we said. To deal with something one doesn't have to espouse your [mis]understanding.

The context of the Blasphemy passage isn't related to the atonement at all. Nevertheless, it says a particular sin won't be forgiven. Since forgiveness is achieved by and through Christ on the Cross, if a sin is unforgiven, it isn't "died for." Therefore, there are things for which Christ didn't die. So, the atonement is limited by Christ to not cover every sin.

The Archangel