Featured The Unlimited Atonement.

37818. You know, I say you have to have sincere faith and try to live a holy life and you answer that that's a merit based salvation. One post later you quote Matthew 7:21-23. The people in that passage look to me like they did not have sincere faith, and rather than try to live a holy life they worked iniquity. The extent of the atonement, whether you think it's limited or not, is not the issue there nor is election.

I'm glad you brought up the last half of Matthew chapter 7. Starting with "Enter ye in at the straight gate..." I wonder how many people on this site would say that that is works based.

Also, in 2 Corinthians 13:5 what exactly are you supposed to examine when it says to examine yourselves to see whether you're in the faith. I can start you off by saying it's not to see if you are one of the elect or if you are included in the limited atonement.

 

If one applies that verse to UNLIMITED ATONEMENT, then does it not demand a logical conclusion of UNIVERSAL SALVATION?
If "us" is all without exception (as in Christ became the sin of all without exception), then "we" (who are made the righteousness of God) must also be all without exception.

That exegesis is ... problematic and to be questioned.

 

That's true. But the reference to Calvin's take on this was merely to show that Calvin didn't try to use that parable to primarily teach the extent of the atonement but to warn people in his congregation of the necessity of faith and the pursuit of a holy life.

 

What I think is the weakest argument for a limited atonement is the fact that Christ died once at a specific time. No one actually had their sins atoned for before that time and an elect person is not forgiven or saved until they come to Christ and trust him for their salvation. We also know that anyone who comes to Christ will not be cast out. So it is difficult to explain a limited atonement because limited always seems to be like someone not bringing enough fried chicken to the pot luck. I fully understand how people would reject it even though I think I understand how is works. I think even Sproul said he would have changed it to "particular" instead of limited.

 

The call is to reconciliation with God. It is not a call to atonement by God.
Thus we can honestly call all humanity to reconcile with Christ, yet leave God to chose whom he wills to have mercy. I see no conflict.

 

The offer is genuine. There are and have been 5 point Calvinists who believe this. But there are some who don't. Also, not to nit pick but "many" are called doesn't mean all so it still is not a good argument for a universal atonement.

 

Isaiah 53:6 is prophesy. Romans 8:30 is explaining the whole process of salvation. You are a Christian, but are you glorified yet?

 

An evidential salvation.
Holiness and faith both grow in one of God's children, and it is a work of the Spirit, not of the flesh my friend.

Galatians 5:22-23, Romans 8:1-16.
Believers are to walk in the Spirit, so that they do not fulfill the lusts of the flesh ( Galatians 5:16-17 ).

To me, Christ's words in Matthew 1:21, John 10:11, John 17, Psalms 5:5-6, Psalms 11:5, Isaiah 53:8 and many other places stand against both a love for all men, and His going to the cross for all;

While Matthew 7:21-23 confirms God's choice of the sinner to salvation ( what is termed as "unconditional election ), because many shall say to Him, "Lord, Lord", and He will tell them, "I never knew you"....
which He would never do to someone that was given to Him by His Father to save per John 17:2,
was foreknown, predestinated, called, justified and glorified according to Romans 8:28-30,
was chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world according to Ephesians 1:2-11,
was made alive in Christ even when they were dead in their trespasses and sins, given the gift of faith and were created in Christ Jesus according to Ephesians 2:1-10,
and was given the privilege to believe per Philippians 1:29.

Matthew 7:21-23 also confirms His election of a people to Himself based on His own purposes and grace,
because many shall seek to enter in, and shall not be able ( Luke 13:22-30 ).
Their lack of ability is their lack of being His elect.

Please see the parable of the wedding ( Matthew 22:1-14 ), where the Jews were bidden, but refused to come...
Many were called, but few were chosen.

So the Lord opened His doors to the Gentiles, and they did come...
Exactly as many as the Father gave to His Son ( John 6:64-65 ), and exactly as many as were ordained to eternal life ( Acts of the Apostles 13:48 )...

and exactly as many as the Lord our God shall call ( Acts of the Apostles 2:39 ).

 

I have never heard anyone argue that the person who came to the wedding without a garment was cast out because the atonement was limited. Is that what you are saying or am I misunderstanding the point you are trying to make?

 

Does no one understand that there are different aspects that all work together for the atonement?

Any one part missing results in no atonement.

The shed blood was for all iniquity of the whole “kosmos;” however, the shed blood alone does not make the atonement complete.

There had to be a specific death of an absolutely pure sacrifice (one reason I cannot accept that Christ ever partook of an intoxicant) as well as a live sacrifice released from death.

There had to be hyssop, bowls, alter, fire, …. each being a part of the picture of the atonement of the Christ.

The blood alone was not the complete atonement!

Therefore, when presenting, please recognize this and then the work of the atonement in the Scriptures will become balanced and truthfully factual communication concerning the work of The Lord Jesus Christ will be shared.

 

The man who came to the wedding without a garment ( the white robe that symbolizes Christ's imputed righteousness, Revelation 3:4, Revelation 19:8, Revelation 19:14 ) was not invited.
He was not elect, and therefore he was not atoned for, since he did not have the white robe of Christ's righteousness...
Which only belongs to God's children, those who are saved and made white by Christ's blood in the sight of Almighty God.

That's why he was bound hand and foot and cast out, why many shall seek to enter in and shall not be able,
and why many who say to Him, "Lord, Lord" shall hear Him say, "I never knew you".

Because He never did.

God chose and gave to His Son the ones that He is to save, and no others.
Our choice does not cause Him to choose us, neither do our efforts cause Him to grant His favor to us as sinners.

Our belief in His Son is not the cause of our salvation...it is the evidence of it.
All of grace and absolutely none of works.

That is what I am saying.

 

How sad it is that many are self deceived. Such a pronouncement of hopelessness upon a person thinking that knowledge of God is enough, that living righteously is enough, that doing good is enough, only to hear those four words from the Saviour’s mouth.

How crushing it will sound to those who thought they had it right and by human reasoning were well thought, but the Lord never knew them.

Not that He one know them did but they drifted away, not that He knew them and gave them opportunity to be saved, but rather He NEVER new them!

37Everyone the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will never drive away. 38For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but to do the will of Him who sent Me.39And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that I shall lose none of those He has given Me, but raise them up at the last day. 40For it is My Father’s will that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in Him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”​

None will look and believe in Him will be turned away. The Lord knows those who are His!

​

 

Dave, I honestly did not know that some Calvinists have that take on that parable. I appreciate the explanation. Also, 37818, I apologize in that I was not able to figure out where you were coming up with that argument. I was assuming that some of you anti Calvinists were misrepresenting the Calvinist position. I had never heard it explained like this before. For now, I am going to stick with Calvin and G.Cambell Morgan though.