Limited Atonement: Let's set the record straight.

[delizzle]

So, rejecting Christ is not a sin? If it is not a sin, what is it, and was Christ wrong when He said in John 3:18 "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God?"

If rejecting Christ is a sin, then did Christ fail to pay the debt for all sin but left unpaid the sin of rejecting Him? And if so, how is that sin forgiven, as we have all rejected Him prior to accepting Him.

Are they being condemned because they sinned? Or because they rejected Christ. If Christ is the only way we can avoid condemnation, wouldn't it make logical sense that rejecting Him would therefore lead to condemnation?

I stand to believe that rejecting Christ is not a sin in itself. It's a choice. Unbelief is not a sin in itself. Otherwise, we may very well say that God is forcing an unbeliever to sin because they cannot accept Christ without His involvement.
God loves you too much to force you to spend eternity with Him.

 

[BobRyan]

So, rejecting Christ is not a sin? If it is not a sin, what is it, and was Christ wrong when He said in John 3:18 "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God?"

If rejecting Christ is a sin, then did Christ fail to pay the debt for all sin but left unpaid the sin of rejecting Him? And if so, how is that sin forgiven, as we have all rejected Him prior to accepting Him.

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

 

[BobRyan]

Are they being condemned because they sinned? Or because they rejected Christ. If Christ is the only way we can avoid condemnation, wouldn't it make logical sense that rejecting Him would therefore lead to condemnation?

I stand to believe that rejecting Christ is not a sin in itself. It's a choice. Unbelief is not a sin in itself. Otherwise, we may very well say that God is forcing an unbeliever to sin because they cannot accept Christ without His involvement.
God loves you too much to force you to spend eternity with Him.

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

 

[BobRyan]

And what is keeping God from accomplish His sovereign will?

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

 

[Iconoclast]

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....

 

[BobRyan]

Yeshua1 said: ↑
And what is keeping God from accomplish His sovereign will?

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?

 

[The Archangel]

If that coin is "Atonement"

And one side is the work of Christ on the cross as sin offering
And the other side is the work of Christ as High Priest in Heaven as Hebrews 4,8,9 state along with Lev 16

so then two different phases of Christ's work -- separated by time

then "agreed"

You will be the first Calvinist I ever met willing to go that far along with Hebrews and "The Day of Atonement"

Not the same "event"

Christ was not in heaven while on the cross.

1 Cor 5 says "Christ our Passover has been sacrificed" - Christ is not only the "sin offering" of the "Day of Atonement" he is ALL sin offerings for all the year both individual events and in the Passover and in the daily service and the end-of-year "Day of Atonement" sacrifice. They all collapse down into the One Sacrifice of Christ... ALL are covered.

Just as Christ's ministry as High Priest includes all the events and services all during the year - not just the "Day of Atonement" They all point to the work of Christ in heaven as High Priest -- His work covers all.

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 Archangel]

People are in hell not because of their sin, but because they rejected Jesus (including the atonement of their sin).

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

 

[Iconoclast]

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

Really?

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.

 

[delizzle]

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.

I am sure Bob I'd not trying to "profane His truth", he merely disagrees with the interpretation of scripture that you accept to be true. I just want to make sure we are not drifting towards the whole "false gospel damnation" accusations. I am not saying you are going there or intend on going there. It's just a pet peeve of mine.

 

[Iconoclast]

I am sure Bob I'd not trying to "profane His truth", he merely disagrees with the interpretation of scripture that you accept to be true. I just want to make sure we are not drifting towards the whole "false gospel damnation" accusations. I am not saying you are going there or intend on going there. It's just a pet peeve of mine.

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.

 

[delizzle]

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.

Perhaps I missed it. But I don't see where he denied the trinity. Also, he is not seriously suggesting that God made a mistake. He is trying to argue that if your interpretation of scripture is correct, God would have made a mistake. Because God doesn't make mistakes, one could only conclude your interpretation to be false.

 

[Iconoclast]

Perhaps I missed it. But I don't see where he denied the trinity. Also, he is not seriously suggesting that God made a mistake. He is trying to argue that if your interpretation of scripture is correct, God would have made a mistake. Because God doesn't make mistakes, one could only conclude your interpretation to be false.

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.

 

[BobRyan]

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.

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??

 

[BobRyan]

Yeshua1 said: ↑
And what is keeping God from accomplish His sovereign will?

BobRyan said: ↑
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

Iconoclast said: ↑
this shows a bound self will no matter how many times you post it....

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

Really?

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

God makes no mistakes...

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??

 

[BobRyan]

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 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

 

[TCassidy]

Are they being condemned because they sinned? Or because they rejected Christ.

So, again, is rejecting Christ a sin?

If Christ is the only way we can avoid condemnation, wouldn't it make logical sense that rejecting Him would therefore lead to condemnation?

And would that rejection be a sin?

I stand to believe that rejecting Christ is not a sin in itself. It's a choice.

Really? So a choice is not a sin? Even a wrong choice?

Unbelief is not a sin in itself.

It isn't? Why not. It is the rejection of all that God has revealed of Himself in Christ.

Otherwise, we may very well say that God is forcing an unbeliever to sin because they cannot accept Christ without His involvement.

Oh good grief! Knock off the "its all God's fault" nonsense!

God loves you too much to force you to spend eternity with Him.

LOL! ROFLOL! That is the funniest thing I have ever read on the BB. And believe me, I have read so really funny things here!

 

[Iconoclast]

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

 

[delizzle]

So, again, is rejecting Christ a sin?

I am glad to here that i am providing you with entertainment. However, without direct involvement from the Holy Spirit, is it possible not to reject Christ? 1 Corinthians 12:3 says the answer is no.

Therefore I want you to know that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus be cursed,” and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit.
1 Corinthians 12:3 NIV

So if we say that rejecting Christ is a sin, we can only conclude that it is a sin that we are forced to commit unless the Holy Spirit is involved. So essencially, unbelief is a sin that God is forcing us to commit due to His uninvolvement. James 1:13 says that this is not possible.

When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone;
James 1:13 NIV

I can only conclude that unbelief, is not a sin. The blood of Jesus atoned for all sin. Thus, if we must stand before God on the Great White Throne of Judgement, we will not be judged for our sin, we will be judged on our decision to accept Jesus' free gift of salvation. Hence, God will send people to hell because they freely chose to go there. They rejected God on earth, so to honor their decision, they will spend eternity separated from God in hell. Hence "God loves you too much to force you to spend eternity with Him".

But how is it possible that God wills that none should parish and all would come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9) and yet we can only believe if the Holy Spirit is involved (1 Cor 12:3)? I conclude that the Holy Spirit is at work and involved for everyone. For some (the elect) that involvement guarantees saving faith.

For the non-elect, the possibility to come to a saving faith is there too. The door is open for them and the Holy Spirit is beckoning them to walk through. However, if they choose not to walk through that door, they will spend eternity in hell for that choice. Not because the choice is a sin (that would be the true "Limited atonement" because the blood of Jesus couldn't atone for the "sin" of unbelief, something I fiercely reject), but because God allows it.

C.S. Lewis states, “Merely to over-ride a human will…would be for Him useless. He cannot ravish. He can only woo” (Lewis 1976, 12).

 

[delizzle]

There is no free will. It does not exist.

Even from a Calvinist position, this statement is false.