• 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!

Limited Atonement: Let's set the record straight.

Status
Not open for further replies.

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
Again, you assume your definition and understanding to be correct, without explaining why they are so.

I think you mean "Why is the term WHOLE WORLD ... really supposed to mean WHOLE WORLD as written in 1 John 2:2 when that would not fit Calvinism"??

Is that not a more direct statement of the question?
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
This i'm certain: God saves all who Call upon His Son to be Saved.

Yes and why did they call upon the name of the LORD?

"I will draw ALL mankind unto Me" John 12:32 -- they were drawn and decided to accept
"I STAND at the door and knock if anyone hears My voice AND OPENS the door -- I WILL come in" Rev 3
 

The Archangel

Well-Known Member
I believe it is a clear "type" of the atonement just as the brazen serpent, by Jesus' own testimony, is a type of Christ. It is a type of atonement in that the only way to escape the judgement of God for their sins was to look upon this brass serpent. The penalty for not looking was death. The reward, if you will, of believing and looking was life. Not eternal life, grant you, but I believe the analogy is clear.


Any Old Testament shadow would fall short. Even the Levitical sacrifices did not atone to the degree of Christ's atonement which was once for all, and so fall short. The author of Hebrews makes that very clear (Hebrews 10).

I gladly believe the serpent is a type. The issue, however, is still that applying the concept of "atonement" to the serpent is something that the text never does. If the Old Testament text doesn't apply that verbiage to the serpent, is it not putting words in Jesus' mouth for us to do so?

Also, though "the blood of bulls and goats cannot take away sin" the text in the Old Testament does call it an atonement. Though, I will argue there can be no atonement with bulls and goats if Christ isn't coming (as He fulfills the type of the sacrificial system). Even then, we should ask: If the blood of bulls and goats can't take away sin--and that was the remedy given for sin by God Himself--how can a brass serpent, especially when the term "atonement" isn't used in the text?

No offense taken whatsoever, Brother. I very much appreciate your civility in these discussions. That being said, we'll disagree on this point. I honestly believe that I remained within the parameters of the analogy given by Jesus in that it is merely a type and not a perfect picture of the atonement, as there is no perfect picture.

Agreed--on the enjoy-ability of this discussion. Obviously, we don't agree on the extent of the analogy, but that's why the discussion is enjoyable! :)

A further question is this: What does "atonement" mean and to whom is atonement made?

Blessings,

The Archangel
 

The Archangel

Well-Known Member
Yes and why did they call upon the name of the LORD?

"I will draw ALL mankind unto Me" John 12:32 -- they were drawn and decided to accept
"I STAND at the door and knock if anyone hears My voice AND OPENS the door -- I WILL come in" Rev 3

Yeah... that's not what Revelation 3 is talking about....

The Archangel
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
In previous posts, I have mentioned several times that according to the doctrine of "Limited Atonement", God determined that certain ones should be saved as a result of God’s unconditional election. Thus, he determined that Christ should die for the elect alone and concluded that the Gospel only applies to the "elect alone". However, when I made such comments, I am usually met with fierce opposition from Calvinists. So why are statements like "Jesus only died for the elect and not everyone" met with such controversy from Calvinists?
Jesus death had infinite value, as God died upon the Cross, and His death applied in a saving sense just towards the intended ones by God, His elect!
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I agree. Universal Atonement doesn't mean universal salvation.
The basic question would be 'why not?"
For if true, than God desire to save all sinners is being stopped in its tracks once again by human free will!
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Yes and why did they call upon the name of the LORD?

"I will draw ALL mankind unto Me" John 12:32 -- they were drawn and decided to accept
"I STAND at the door and knock if anyone hears My voice AND OPENS the door -- I WILL come in" Rev 3
That promise was made to those already saved, not to the lost!
 

JonShaff

Fellow Servant
Site Supporter
That promise was made to those already saved, not to the lost!
While i mostly agree....i find calvinists saying that there are "Warning verses", not really directed at "genuine believers in the assembly." Maybe this is one of those "Warning Verses" that if there are any unrepetant sinners in the congregation, they'd hear that message and be saved.
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
While i mostly agree....i find calvinists saying that there are "Warning verses", not really directed at "genuine believers in the assembly." Maybe this is one of those "Warning Verses" that if there are any unrepetant sinners in the congregation, they'd hear that message and be saved.
I think the context though fits that Jesus wants to make sure that they are not growing cold and going luke warm, to make they actually want Him there in their midst!
 

TCassidy

Late-Administator Emeritus
Administrator
Thus, he determined that Christ should die for the elect alone
Wrong. (2 Cor 5:15).

and concluded that the Gospel only applies to the "elect alone".
Wrong again. The Gospel call is universal. (Mark 16:15).

However, when I made such comments, I am usually met with fierce opposition from Calvinists.
Yes, error must be confronted and corrected.

So why are statements like "Jesus only died for the elect and not everyone" met with such controversy from Calvinists?
No controversy. The statements are simply wrong.

Find out what you are talking about before posting and you may not be corrected as often.
 

delizzle

Active Member
Again, the fallacy in your statement is the assumption that anyone and everyone knows who the elect are. In reality, they are known only to God. There is no way to know whether anyone we share the gospel with is elect or not, except for whether they accept it and hold fast--but that's after-the-fact.

The Archangel
Naturally, we cannot know who the elect are. Even you cannot honestly know you are elect. The point is that according to the doctrine of Limited Atonement, Jesus didn't die for the non-elect. Thus, we can only conclude that the Gospel only applies to the elect.
 

delizzle

Active Member
Again, we have a fallacy. You're begging the question with the citation of 2 Peter 3:9, 1 Timothy 2:4, and John 3:16. You are assuming they say what you think they say without proving from the text that they actually reference the "whole world" and that the whole world means everyone without exception.

The Archangel
So when scripture says that "it's God's will that non should perish and all would come to repentance", what else can that possibly mean? The only answer that you can possibly have that will allow you to hang on to your theology without making God out to be a liar is to say that the John, 2 Peter, and 1 Timothy doesn't apply to the non elect. When the scriptures say "all", "none", "everyone", or "the world", it really means "all the elect", "none of the elect", every elect", or "the elect of the world". Is this statement true or false?
 

Martin Marprelate

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
But if someone is not elect, they were never meant to accept the Gospel to begin with. So sharing the Gospel with a non-elect is nothing more than rubbing it in their faces that they are going to hell.
You are confusing Calvinism with a rather extreme form of Hyper-Calvinism.
 

delizzle

Active Member
Wrong. (2 Cor 5:15).

Wrong again. The Gospel call is universal. (Mark 16:15).

Yes, error must be confronted and corrected.

No controversy. The statements are simply wrong.

Find out what you are talking about before posting and you may not be corrected as often.
Do you then reject the doctrine of Limited Atonement and accept universal atonement?
 

TCassidy

Late-Administator Emeritus
Administrator
Even you cannot honestly know you are elect.
Of course we can know. We believe.

The point is that according to the doctrine of Limited Atonement, Jesus didn't die for the non-elect.
This error has already been corrected. Repeating it, after being corrected, is blatant hypocrisy.

Thus, we can only conclude that the Gospel only applies to the elect.
Another blatant falsehood which has already been corrected.
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
First, you need to copy and past from a Calvinist website a definition of "Limited Atonement." Otherwise they claim your view is not correct. It is a ploy.

Next, you need to make clear God desires all persons to be saved, according to His redemption plan. Thus only those whose faith He credits as righteous are saved, but the opportunity for salvation is provided by Christ being the propitiation for the sin of the whole world, 1 John 2:2.

Next, you must address the idea that our sin burden was removed, not when Christ died, but when God transferred us into Christ.

You should consider your efforts successful when you crystallize your understanding as being consistent with all scripture.

For example if those to be saved had been chosen individually before creation, why does scripture say those never to be saved were bought by the blood of Jesus?
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
Again, you assume your definition and understanding to be correct, without explaining why they are so.

I assume the obvious --- is obvious.


As a Calvinist - does the possibility even exist in your mind that your definition and assumptions about words, phrases, and certain verses may be wrong to one degree or another?


Given the text
He is the "Atoning Sacrifice for OUR sins and not for our sins only but for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD" 1 John 2:2

Should "Whole WORLD" be downsized and re-imagined as "the FEW of Matthew 7"? Or can we just leave it as "WHOLE WORLD"?

Many Calvinists will insist outright that it must be downsized to the "FEW of Matthew 7"
 

delizzle

Active Member
In the Arminian model God "sovereignly chooses a free will based universe" - which means He voluntarily limits what He "will do" (not what He CAN do) so that beings have some degree of free will./QUOTE]

I agree with this statement. However, in all fairness to the Calvinist, the same situation applies. In order to hold on to your theology of free will without making God out to be "small and powerless", the only acceptable answer is that God soveregnly limited his providence over His creation. In this case, His providence over the will of humanity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top