Featured The Unlimited Atonement.

From, before, since, it's all the same, sir.
I can see that we disagree, so I think it's best to leave it at that.

 

I concede that your opinion is, that it's not true.

To me, "what is patently untrue" is a matter of your opinion, and nothing more...
Just as what I've presented is a matter of my opinion, whether or not you agree with it.

Similar to my question from the other thread, who gets to decide what the truth is and what it is not?
You?
Me?
How about the Lord, when we see Him?

I wish you well, and may He bless you greatly.

 

You guys confuse me in your position.

“From” has two basic views, either it is the starting point of a continuum of something being built, or it is the point of something that occurs complete and will remain and be an impact till the end.

I haven’t seen the Scriptures anyone is added to the book of life, but read about names perhaps being blotted out. So that would make the book complete at the foundation, important during the continuum, and impacting the end.

All names in the book at the start, no names added, and the end the book is the document for entering everlasting rest.

Did I miss something in your presentations that would make a difference?

 

"From" is contextual and dependent upon how it is used in each passage.
In Revelation 17:8, I see that the names are written in the Lamb's Book of Life "from" ( at that point, or during that time ) the foundation of the world,
In the same exact manner as believers are chosen "in Him" before the foundation of the world.

"From", "before", "since"...they all mean the same to me in the passages that have been listed, while it seems that they are different to him.
Some have said that "from" indicates when they started to be written, and they are still being written.

I disagree, because it contradicts and conflicts with the Lord Jesus saving all that were given to Him by the Father...
Which He knows and who know Him, and He will never tell them, "I never knew you".

He knows all the names in His Book of Life, because He has always known.
To me, "know" and "knew" mean "love" "loved", not just "know about", but know, personally.

See Jeremiah 1:5, Romans 8:29-30.

 

Considering that the scriptures are silent concerning names added, and only uses terms of one’s being blotted out, then it seems one must assume the book was complete at the creation of Adam.

Is that an improper assumption or in some manner refuted by Scripture?

 

So, although there are references concerning the blotting out as you have graciously shown in your good response and none about adding, then am I correct to assume two things?
1) All names of the redeemed were written prior to Adam, and
2) Only those names where to be granted eternal life by belief.

Is this correct?

 

I think it is important to realize that the Calvinistic Doctrines of Grace have to be taken as a complete system or they don't make any sense. People who are not included in the atonement are not blocked from salvation because God did something to them and they therefore are blocked from ever coming to Christ because they were not included in the atonement. Everyone who objects to a limited atonement has this somewhere in the back of their mind and when you dig deep enough that is the problem. In other words they have a situation in mind where someone comes to Christ and is told that they can't because the atonement didn't include them.

 

I don't know if that passage applies here. I'm not disagreeing with you, I just really don't know.

 

Well I checked Calvin's commentary real quick and it seems that this was a warning immediately to the Jews that Jesus was with but that is also applies to us as Gentiles. The message according to Calvin is that it's a warning not to rely on election or an invitation - you better not show up without sincere faith and a holy life.

 

Question: Is God doing the calling here or is it we who share the message who do the calling?
The message of reconciliation goes out universally to all people since none of us know the list of the elect, but the chosen are those God elected to save.
There is, in my opinion, no conflict here...unless you demand that God is doing the calling as well as the choosing. I view the calling as our job, the servant of the King, while the choosing is the Kings job.
Remember the parable of the wedding banquet where people are called to the banquet and one arrives but doesn't have the robe that would be given to the guests? That parable shows the call and the choosing as one example for why I see this the way I do.

 

This is what I was talking about earlier. You cannot take something like the concept of a limited atonement and make it stand alone. All people are by nature not interested in coming to Christ. That parable refers to the fact that the Jews were called first and they collectively speaking mistreated the prophets and would even kill the son. Calvin said that going out to the highways and byways and compelling a lot more people to come in refers to a more general invitation for us gentiles for example. And then the person without the wedding garment refers to someone who thinks they can come in on their own terms. G. Campbell Morgan said that it refers to someone who comes in deliberately not wearing a wedding garment and so they will be rejected. I don't think this parable is about the atonement - you brought that up.

As for the comment about the merit based salvation, I don't know if you are a Calvinist, non-Calvinist, or a hyper Calvinist but if you think you can either be elect, or come on your own free will and and don't think you need faith and a holy life you are sadly mistaken. These arguments about the 5 points and extent of the atonement and so on are of some use but whether you are convinced of the of the logic of Calvinism or not you have to come with sincere faith and if you live after being saved you must try to live a holy life.