Limited Atonement: Let's set the record straight.

Jesus was right to say
41 Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no sin; but since you say, ‘We see,’ your sin remains." John 9:41

 

John 3

18 He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21 But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.”

It is always a choice

 

His sovereign will is to have a free will universe.

Thus

"He came to His OWN and His OWN received Him not" John 1:11
"O Jerusalem Jerusalem.. How I WANTED... but you would not" Matthew 23
"we BEG you on behalf of Christ - BE reconciled to God" 2 Cor 5

 

this shows a bound self will no matter how many times you post it....

 

So then "God" needs to "learn a thing or two from Calvinists" so He will stop making that mistake??

Really?

 

This is where your argument fails... because you're assuming things to be true which Hebrews clearly contradicts. Look at Hebrews 9:23-28

[23] Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. [24] For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. [25] Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, [26] for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. [27] And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, [28] so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him. (Hebrews 9:23–28 ESV)​

Hebrews tells us that Jesus has already entered into the heavenly holy places to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. Now, that behalf cannot be everyone without exception because that inclusivity is never the aim of the author. In chapter 1 he speaks of "our fathers," clearly delineating between Christian Jews (and believing Gentiles) and the rest of mankind.

Secondly, Jesus appeared once-for-all and then presented Himself before God on our behalf. That means your idea that Jesus metes-out salvation on a case-by-case basis is simply wrong.

Third, if you are correct, why would the veil of the temple be torn open? If you are correct in your assumption the tearing of the curtain could never happen until all the blood of Jesus had run out and the last atonement been made.

In reality, Jesus becomes sin, bears the Father's wrath, and makes atonement by spilling His blood and applying His blood to those whom He represents. This is what Hebrews here is saying.

The Archangel

 

The problem here is that you have an "atonement" that accomplishes nothing.

If Jesus dies as a propitiation, which the text clearly says that He does, that means (1) God's wrath against sin is satisfied and (2) his disposition toward the sinner is changed from unfavorable to favorable. Then, those for whom He died are no longer at enmity with God.

The problem with your scheme is that Jesus' death merely makes salvation possible while accomplishing nothing. The Bible clearly and repeatedly calls Jesus' death "atonement," "propitiation," "ransom," etc. None of those things is "potential;" it either is or it isn't. It's kind of like you can't be "almost pregnant;" either you are you are not.

If we are told, we are "bought with a price," which we clearly are, that means that a transaction happened on the cross--not a potential transaction. Christ satisfied the Father's wrath against sin and turned His disposition toward us into favor. We do not get to ratify or nullify that transaction as it is between Christ and the Father.

So, either you have Christ "buying" (or ransoming) the elect only or you have Him buying everyone, in which case you cannot avoid a universal salvation.

The Archangel

 

God makes no mistakes....He allows you to attempt to profane His truth,and you resist like those in scripture resisted.Repent and seek His mercy.

 

My friend....I understand what you are saying. There does come a point when someone does cross the line .
If someone denies the trinity....would you simply say...oh well

He sees it a little differently but we cannot comment or make such a determination?
Bob repeats corrected errors over and over.
Not everything posted is just a "different pov."....when He suggests God...makes mistakes...that is quite profane.

 

You did miss it!
The trinity thing was an example.....to You!
Would you say a denial of The trinity was incidental, or crucial?
I know what he was suggesting....I have heard many say such profane things ...such as...

I could not worship a God who elects some and not all....
Or a God who sends men to he'll.

That is the biblical God....so the fact that they say profane things does not change the truth

See his misguided post 106.

 

more creative writing?

We both know you have no "God makes mistakes" quotes from me and we both know it... we only have that quote "in your post" as you "quote you" to condemn others ... falsely.

You DO have me saying that the Calvinist point you made -- appears to imply God is making mistakes. You could have "clarified" your position to show how your statement holds true without leading to that flawed end-point in your argument. I was opening the door for you to address it.. So far you are declining .. for reasons I don't understand.

We both know you have no "deny the Trinity" quote fro me and we both know it.... you have only your own quote "of your post" as you "quote you" to condemn others... falsely..

How in the world does that help you on this thread??

 

This is the part where you were supposed to "rescue" your post

So then in that case you agree with me - it is not God making a mistake... free will is not "a mistake" by God ?? You actually agree??

 

I was suggesting that the post you made - is arguing that God made the mistake of creating "free will". your posted response above does not make it apparent that you actually did understand the point

 

There is no free will. It does not exist.
Satan thought it did.
Rebellious carnal men think it exists.

So your post was misguided altogether.
Bad ideas lead to bad theology which leads to profane thoughts about God