The definitive evidence against only limited atonement.

[Silverhair]

LOL, let go of your Calvinist boogeyman. It is YOU who keeps using Calvin as an excuse for rejecting the Bible. I provide scripture after scripture while you reject passage after passage with the phrase "Calvinist."
Silver, this whole discussion is you rejecting God's word.

Funny your the one that keeps holding onto that calvinist theology so why do you not like when I refer to it.
You provide text after text and I keep showing you that it does not work the way you want it to. But surprise surprise you ignore what I say and the scripture I give you. I use Calvinist because they do not want be to say that your view is .....

 

[AustinC]

Sadly you have chosen to place your trust in the Calvinist view for salvation.

Christ Jesus came to seek and to save the lost Luk_19:10, this includes all people Joh_12:32, and He was the propitiation for all sins 1Jn 2:2. But we are also told that we have to do something, we have to believe Joh 3:18 and why we might do so Eph 1:13. Salvation is conditional, the person has to make a choice Rom 10:9-10, the sad part many will reject the offer and die in their sins.

So you see Christ Jesus did indeed die for sinners that will be lost because they reject the good faith offer of salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

Nope, you don't answer the question.

But, you do remove grace from salvation and make it a work of man.

Honestly, your theology is just awful and not supported by even the verses you cherry pick.

 

[AustinC]

Funny your the one that keeps holding onto that calvinist theology so why do you not like when I refer to it.
You provide text after text and I keep showing you that it does not work the way you want it to. But surprise surprise you ignore what I say and the scripture I give you. I use Calvinist because they do not want be to say that your view is .....

This is you creating labels while I hold to God's Word. When you gonna let go your boogeyman and address scripture alone?
So far you have fallen on two verses as your cord upon which you dangle like a spider over the flame. I have provided 6 pages of scripture.

 

[Silverhair]

"The order, repentance first, and faith following it...You can have an intellectual assent to propositions; you can have notional faith, but you cannot have saving faith without repentance. Repentance is involved in it, and it is in a sense because you repent that you believe."
D.M. Lloyd-Jones from "The Puritans" page 182.
Honestly though, I intended only to list both, and didn't really think of the order because one is the flip-side of the other. Also, good theologians reverse the order, depending on what point they are trying to make.



No. I'm glad you put that up. That is a lot like what John R. Rice said in his discussion of hyper-Calvinism. He said he was a Calvinist and then went on to discredit 4 out of the 5 points. What I mean by "moderate" is someone like Martyn Lloyd-Jones or Charles Spurgeon who are full 5 pointers but have evangelism, warm preaching of repentance, and experiential living of the Christian life as their main priority rather than the theological debate around things like soteriology. Both of these guys were quite precise in their theology yet Lloyd-Jones was a fan of methodism and Richard Baxter and Charles Spurgeon used to have his old sermons reprinted in Sword of The Lord, the fundamentalist newspaper, which I think was started by John R. Rice. There are, in my opinion, some modern Calvinists who seem to have as their main goal in life a mission to gleefully tell people that a whole bunch of the human race was created by God in order to burn in hell - and then, because they are good at debate they humiliate the upset and shocked Christians who oppose them. I want nothing to do with that.

Faith Repentance Two sides of the same coin, can't have one without the other. This is how I have always heard it; If you have faith you will repent, if you repent it is because you believe. Logically the only reason that a person would repent is because they believe the gospel message, in other words they trust that the one spoken of, Christ Jesus, can save them.

I have liked Spurgeon for a long time, actually I have one of his quotes as the signature on my Email.

“DISCERNMENT is not simply telling the difference between what is Right and Wrong;
rather, it is the difference between Right and almost right.”

Do not really know much of the other two, but then again I do not read much from the old writers. When I have read any of them they tend to be very wordy. Takes them forever to get to the point.

I agree that we do have a number of Calvinists that seem to think they are the only ones that know how to read and exegete scripture. Can be a bit trying to deal with them by times.

 

[Silverhair]

This is you creating labels while I hold to God's Word. When you gonna let go your boogeyman and address scripture alone?
So far you have fallen on two verses as your cord upon which you dangle like a spider over the flame. I have provided 6 pages of scripture.

Did you not see post # 65? I did look at all the "chosen" verses but not sure what point you were trying to make there. God makes choices, we all know that. God chooses people or nations for lots of reasons. Where you seem to have a problem is you think that only God can make choices. But that is your blind spot not mine.

Now I have to ask why do you think I would have a problem with Rom 9:15-26. God is in control He makes choices but what you fail to see is that He also calls people, just as Paul says in verse Rom 9:24. Not just Jews but Gentiles also and why so that they would be His people, sons of the living God.

Lets look at Joh 6:36-40. First thing we should notice is that this text is book ended by free will verses. Vs 36 "you have seen Me, and yet do not believe." and Vs 40 "everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life"

So we see that the text presents a clear picture that the ones that the Father gives to the son are those that freely believe.

You have tried to show that TULIP is supported in the bible but you have missed the mark by a mile. Austin take off the calvinist glasses and just trust the text of the bible. It will lead you back to the right path.

 

[37818]

FYI for those may have missed this. The notion of the L in the TULIP is at stake - and the evidence of Luke 22:20-21 stands true. Christ shed His blood for not solely those at the table which included Jesus' betrayer.

 

[DaveXR650]

FYI for those may have missed this. The notion of the L in the TULIP is at stake - and the evidence of Luke 22:20-21 stands true. Christ shed His blood for not solely those at the table which included Jesus' betrayer.

The Bible is made up of explicit teaching, as well as narratives and stories. You simply cannot use the narrative we have of the last supper and speculate on whether Christ died for Judas or the extent of the atonement.

What is not explicitly taught in scripture is that before time began God decided to shut a huge group of people out of the possibility of redemption - ONLY because of the fact that Christ did not shed his blood for them. What is taught in scripture is that all have sinned and if we are not saved we have not been unfairly treated - we got fair justice. We are not naturally inclined to change our path and repent and come to Christ. The Holy Spirit must act, or no one will be saved. As a Calvinist, I think this action is more than persuasion, there is a creative act (being quickened, or born again). At any rate it is decisive and it is selective. Because it is sovereignly selective some are left out because it is God's will to respect those people's will.

Now, if you believe that Christ died for real sins, not just as an example, or to satisfy God's governmental decree, or to show Christ as victor; and you believe that this is what actually saves you then the limited atonement falls into place perfectly. JonC is the smartest person on here because he knows that Calvinism hinges on penal substitution.

The only thing I would add is that the TULIP is a unit and falls apart without all the letters. But "L" is not what the reformers preferred because that does make it seem like it's not our fault if we don't make it - it's God's. The redemption is specific and particular and no one has been unfairly left out.

 

[DaveXR650]

Do not really know much of the other two, but then again I do not read much from the old writers. When I have read any of them they tend to be very wordy. Takes them forever to get to the point.

It does, they will take 10 pages, use Greek, Latin and English to make one point. And if you page forward or jump around like modern readers you will find yourself mistaking their point of view because you jumped into the middle of them explaining exactly what their opponents point of view was! But read sermons of Calvinists and you will find beautiful preaching and warning of the people in a way that a lot of modern preaching misses. Start with Spurgeon but even Owen has sermons where he invites and almost begs people to come to Christ. I also think the newer Calvinist's have some of the best preaching. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, MacArthur, Paul Washer, Alistair Begg are all Calvinists.

 

[37818]

You simply cannot use the narrative we have of the last supper and speculate on whether Christ died for Judas or the extent of the atonement.

Narratives being the word of God are either historical but always didactic. The non-first century churches have gotten this wrong.

FYI for those may have missed this. The notion of the L in the TULIP is at stake - and the evidence of Luke 22:20-21 stands true. Christ shed His blood for not solely those at the table which included Jesus' betrayer.

 

[DaveXR650]

Narratives being the word of God are either historical but always didactic. The non-first century churches have gotten this wrong.

Always to teach but not always to present a specific doctrine. There is much scripture that gives historical narrative, or sets up a situation, or allows us to know the people in scripture. Every single thing cannot be taken as a doctrinal teaching that you get to infer.

 

[37818]

Always to teach but not always to present a specific doctrine. There is much scripture that gives historical narrative, or sets up a situation, or allows us to know the people in scripture. Every single thing cannot be taken as a doctrinal teaching that you get to infer.

If a teaching disagrees with the word of God for any reason, that is an issue. Luke 22:20-21 sets Judas at the remembrance Jesus instituted before He went to the cross. That judas was at that part of the meal is an important historical fact.

FYI for those may have missed this. The notion of the L in the TULIP is at stake - and the evidence of Luke 22:20-21 stands true. Christ shed His blood for not solely those at the table which included Jesus' betrayer.

In the gospel of Luke we have Jesus' words, in Luke 22:20-21, ". . . saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table. . . ."
The "you" was spoken to disciples at the table, which did not excluded lost Judas. Christ's blood was shed for all the lost.
Romans 5:8, ". . . while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. . . ."
1 Timothy 1:15, ". . . This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief. . . ."
Now Judas we know was not saved. Christ died for him too.

 

[Brightfame52]

Once again read post # 57. The answer is there.

Yes or no will suffice !

 

[Brightfame52]

Seems clear to me that you lack that ability.

Insults lol

 

[DaveXR650]

That judas was at that part of the meal is an important historical fact.

Yes but you cannot take that historical fact as the basis for a new doctrine. That fact does not in any way suggest that Jesus did or didn't die for Judas. At that point he had not died for anyone, right?

Which brings up a good point actually. Christ died at a specific point in time. All non-Calvinists, and most Calvinists believe that until you have faith, the atonement is not applied to you. If that is true, and since the value of Christ's death is overwhelmingly more valuable than all sins ever committed, and since until one believes no sins are forgiven anyway, why not just say that "Christ has died". You can be totally monergistic and still believe in a non limited atonement that is based on penal substitution.

 

[Silverhair]

It does, they will take 10 pages, use Greek, Latin and English to make one point. And if you page forward or jump around like modern readers you will find yourself mistaking their point of view because you jumped into the middle of them explaining exactly what their opponents point of view was! But read sermons of Calvinists and you will find beautiful preaching and warning of the people in a way that a lot of modern preaching misses. Start with Spurgeon but even Owen has sermons where he invites and almost begs people to come to Christ. I also think the newer Calvinist's have some of the best preaching. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, MacArthur, Paul Washer, Alistair Begg are all Calvinists.

I have listened to MacArthur and Washer and I agree they are good speakers although they can be inconsistent with the theology they hold.

I have heard a number of Calvinist preachers say, if you will turn or if you will trust etc. So their preaching is not consistent with their theology. Don't get me wrong on this, I am glad that they do say that as it is consistent with the bible. Man has to freely chose to accept or reject the gospel.

What I have found with a number of Calvinists is that they are very angry and judgemental. Many are just not nice at all but instead are arrogant. Why that is I do not know but it turns me off as far as listening to anything they have to say.

 

[Silverhair]

Yes or no will suffice !

Looks like you don't like what you read. But that is not a great surprise.

Christ Jesus came to seek and to save the lost Luk_19:10, this includes all people Joh_12:32, and He was the propitiation for all sins 1Jn 2:2. But we are also told that we have to do something, we have to believe Joh 3:18 and why we might do so Eph 1:13. Salvation is conditional, the person has to make a choice Rom 10:9-10, the sad part many will reject the offer and die in their sins.

So you see Christ Jesus did indeed die for sinners that will be lost because they reject the good faith offer of salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

Now I realize that all those big words may confuse you but try real hard to understand what they say.

 

[Silverhair]

Insults lol

Not an insult, just an observation.

 

[DaveXR650]

I have heard a number of Calvinist preachers say, if you will turn or if you will trust etc. So their preaching is not consistent with their theology. Don't get me wrong on this, I am glad that they do say that as it is consistent with the bible. Man has to freely chose to accept or reject the gospel.

You are correct. I came across a message by a Calvinist who was saying that Jesus can do nothing for you if you don't believe. That was John Owen. But this is what I have been trying to say. The WCF, if read carefully is not in contradiction with this type of preaching. I think it's chapter 10 but the general call is real and you need to call on everyone to repent and believe the gospel (or believe the gospel and repent). It is not a joke - anyone who does this gets saved, but you know what - it turns out they were "elect". And it turns out they were of the folks Christ determined before the foundation of the world to die for. And it turns out they received the "effectual call". But at some point you appeal to people by preaching Christ and then they need to make a decision. How and why that occurred is theology and we can argue that.

 

[AustinC]

Looks like you don't like what you read. But that is not a great surprise.

Christ Jesus came to seek and to save the lost Luk_19:10, this includes all people Joh_12:32, and He was the propitiation for all sins 1Jn 2:2. But we are also told that we have to do something, we have to believe Joh 3:18 and why we might do so Eph 1:13. Salvation is conditional, the person has to make a choice Rom 10:9-10, the sad part many will reject the offer and die in their sins.

So you see Christ Jesus did indeed die for sinners that will be lost because they reject the good faith offer of salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

Now I realize that all those big words may confuse you but try real hard to understand what they say.

You don't even see it. I can highlight it and still you won't see it.
You place humans above God and thus deny God's Sovereignty. You take Jesus atonement and make it ineffective for anyone whose will is greater than God's will. You put man in control of his own salvation and make Jesus a weak observer.
You limit Jesus atonement, not because Jesus was particular in who he died for, but because you think humans have the authority and power to limit Jesus atonement and thus make it ineffective.

In summary, your theology is terrible.

 

[37818]

Yes but you cannot take that historical fact as the basis for a new doctrine.

It is not new. This first century Apostolic teaching found in Luke 22:20-21 is not commonly understood today. It began being denied in the early second century.