Featured Limited Atonement insanity.

???

What do you think the "one act of righteousness" is, if not the atonement?

 

This astounds me that you can't discern the relevancy of this passage to the 'L' in TULIP, or to the title of this thread, which happens to be posted in the C vs A forum.

 

@kyredneck

I just showed you, by comparing it with Vs 19, its the same people being described Rom 5:18-19

18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

The same results, Justification. See Justification of life in Vs 18 is one and the same with made righteous in Vs19

 

Read the words of the passage. What it is teaching us is that just as one man is able to make all sinners, so also one man makes us righteous. "The design of this section is the illustration of the doctrine of the justification of sinners on the ground of the righteousness of Christ, by a reference to the condemnation of men for the sin of Adam." Look at the context. No matter what you believe regarding the "L" that is not what is being discussed in that passage. This is why you need to starting reading come good commentaries.

 

Regarding the title of this thread, in itself it is a set-up for conflict as it starts out by labeling one system "insanity". Still, in post 5 I made some legitimate suggestions which you did not answer. Others did though as discussion went fine, and respectfully, until you came on with your usual technique. You introduce a verse out of your hat and then hammer away, demanding a one sentence answer and keep repeating the question as if that will somehow convince people you are right. For some reason it really sets you off if I quote someone who might actually know something which leads me to believe that just as you post, you value your own opinion, and nobodies like me, as equal to the great theologians and Biblical scholars. This is a common problem ever since the internet gave us all access to see ourselves as it were, in print.

 

Not really. Are you saying the first 'all men' below means the entire human race, but the second 'all men' below means only the elect?

18 So then as through one trespass the judgment came unto all men to condemnation; even so through one act of righteousness the free gift came unto all men to justification of life.

 

BF you have missed to meaning of Paul's comment because you have again ignored context. Romans 5:12-19

Rom 5:12 "...through one man sin entered the world...thus death spread to all men"
Rom 5:18 "..through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life" NKJV

We see in this text Rom 5:12-18 the cause and the remedy for our separation form God.

Paul then gives a summation in Romans 5:19
"...by one man's disobedience many were made sinners..."
so also
"...by one Man's obedience many will be made righteous"

Your conclusion is flawed, you are reading into the text rather than letting the text inform you.

 

I did notice in Barnes commentary that he mentions something Calvin said. Barnes was making the argument as follows. "So of the provisions of the plan of redemption. They are adapted to all; they are ample, and yet in fact, from causes which this is not the place to explain, the benefits, like those of medicine, water, science, etc. may never be enjoyed by all the race. Calvin concurs in this interpretation, and thus shows, that it is one which commends itself even to the most strenuous advocates of the system which is called by his name. He says, 'He (the apostle) makes the grace common to all, because it is offered to all, not because it is in fact applied to all. For although Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and it is offered to all without distinction, yet all do not embrace it'.

This was in Barnes discussion of this, specifically Romans 5:18, if you have the book. He doesn't say this is in any way the main point of the passage but I guess it always comes up. It makes me wonder if Calvin was as extreme about the extent of the atonement as the Calvinists on this site.

I also would like those on here who disagree with the idea of a true offer of the gospel to everyone to explain how Calvin himself seems to say that.

 

Well, truth be known it's what most are ultimately here for, to engage in some conflict. Get over it. Why'd you join in?

K. you're proud of post #5:

"I only mean that at the time of Christ's dying, there was no aspect of his atonement that forever set those who would be saved vs those who would be lost. What that means is that for a person who has come to the point where they are beginning to think that this is all true, and beginning to understand what their condition is apart from Christ - one thing they do not have to worry about is whether or not Christ included them in the atonement. It is quite possible that the Calvinistic idea of the "L" or limited atonement may be exactly the right way to explain it. It's just that for the OP, they need to know that the theology of the extent of the atonement is not their problem."

"...for a person who has come to the point where they are beginning to think that this is all true, and beginning to understand what their condition is apart from Christ..." - means the Spirit has wrought within, i.e., they're elect. Christ [particularly/especially] died for them.

"It is quite possible that the Calvinistic idea of the "L" or limited atonement may be exactly the right way to explain it." K. That's your opinion, I guess (is it? your opinion?). I prefer the Primitive Baptist 'Particular Redemption' in lieu of Limited Atonement. He bought the whole field, but He particularly bought the treasure hidden in that field, i.e., 'the Savior of all men, especially them that believe'.

 

Have to disagree with you Dave. The text is clear
"just as through one man sin entered the world"
and
"death through sin"
why
"because all sinned"
thus
"death spread to all men"

We are not condemned because of Adam's sin but for our own. A consequence of Adam's sin was physical death.

We can know this because of Romans 5:13-14. Even though man was not held accountable for their sins prior to the law all still died.

 

That's a poetic way of saying it but that doesn't address the question I brought up in post 5. Some brands of Calvinism teach that those who are not elect have not been included in the atoning sacrifice of Christ and therefore it is impossible that they could (even theoretically) be saved. Do you believe that or not? In other words, is there an actual offer of the salvation to everyone in such a way that they could be saved if they would respond. (I'm not asking if all have an equal chance, or if all have the desire or ability, just this - if they would respond could they be saved or has the atonement occurred in such a way that they are sunk at that point. If the Primitive Baptist is different from this explain to me how as I really don't know.

 

That was a quote from Hodge that I forgot to reference and I apologize for that. The way I understand it is that Paul is trying to make clear that even though the point is true that by one man sin came upon all men he wanted to make sure we would not forget that we are also participants in that we personally are sinners too. He said that because later, when he said we were justified by the actions of one (Christ) that we would not try to make that into some kind of universal salvation. In other words we still have to respond to the gospel message.

Your point is what I was trying to say in general. This passage is one of the most controversial in scripture because it brings up all the issues of imputed sin and if that's true and what is meant by it. Is Adam our federal head and what does that mean? I don't know enough about that to have an opinion but I just don't think this passage is primarily about the extent of the atonement.

 

Where's the question mark in post #5????????

I 'lean' to Romans 5:18 meaning that the atonement removed Adam's curse from humankind and 'all men' are now born innocent, i.e., NOT BOUND FOR HELL FROM BIRTH, as many Calvinists believe. Thus 'the age of accountability', when 'all men' become guilty of their own accord (Romans 7:9), not Adam's.

<sigh> Why can't you discern the truth and take a stance from the scriptures instead doing all this back-and-forth waffling?

26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep.
27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: Jn 10

43 Why do ye not understand my speech? Even because ye cannot hear my word.
46 Which of you convicteth me of sin? If I say truth, why do ye not believe me?
47 He that is of God heareth the words of God: for this cause ye hear them not, because ye are not of God. Jn 8

14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 1 Cor 2

48 And as the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of God: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed. Acts 13:48

Does this sound like just any ol' body can be saved? Doesn't Owen or Bunyan or Hodge cover this?

Only the heavenly born elect can believe.

If they're not heavenly born elect they can't respond. It's FOOLISHNESS to them. They cannot know it.

Primitive Baptist on Particular Redemption - Search (bing.com)

 

So how do you reconcile the above statement with the Primitive Baptist view of the atonement you linked at the end? Are you saying that there was some aspect of the atonement that was universal but that there is another aspect that was particular.

Talk about waffling. See if you can answer the first point above. Why is it waffling to say that Christ died for everyone? The work of the Holy Spirit is essential for someone to come to Christ. God is sovereign at that point, not in limiting the atonement. The only place where I waffle is that I admit that from God's viewpoint, since he had knowledge specifically of who he would save when a Calvinist says that the atonement was sufficient for everyone but yet meant for the elect I can see their point. It is not the way I express it, mainly because I have seen the difficulty this gives most people, who are viewing all this from their human point of view. And why not?

They do. And surprisingly the answer is exactly as I have been saying.

 

Yes. I agree. So the problem is that they don't believe, not that they have been left out of the atonement. That's what I said in post 5. Welcome aboard.

Correct again. And that is the reason, not that the atonement did not apply to them.

This is the view of most traditional Baptists and moderate Calvinists who do not believe in a limited atonement yet believe in the sovereignty of God in the leading of people to Christ by his Spirit. This view leaves room for prayer that God would change peoples hearts and be the necessary influence in their salvation. Yet it does not go so far as some free will semi-Pelagians do in that man must be totally sovereign in self determining his own beliefs and whether or not he will come to Christ. And my view acknowledges that everyone does not have an equal "chance" at being saved.

 

Yes. G.C. Morgan has a lot to say on this as he talks about people being overcome by sinful tendencies.

That was John Bunyan's exact argument too.

 

I don't. I feel obligated only to reconcile with scripture. I just like the way they word 'the third petal', Particular Redemption', it fits the parable of Matthew 13:44 and other controversial C vs A passages.

Yes.

10 For to this end we labor and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of them that believe. 1 Tim 4:10

What point is that Dave? Again, I see no question mark.

I didn't say that. You're fully aware of the passages I posted and yet you go on and on and on with all this theoretical philosophizing as if they don't exist. Make up your mind, are you a Monergist or a Synergist?

No, the fact is that they CAN'T believe.

Yea? Like that question you asked but didn't? About as clear as mud...

Agree.

 

That passage is not about different aspects of the atonement. It is saying that God is the saviour of all men, with the added statement to clarify that this is not talking about universalism.

You really can't give an answer. Can you? It's OK to say you don't know but you do know as well as I do. The simple fact is, if at the atonement, there are those functionally left out or not included (by the actual function of what Christ did) - then that is indeed saying something completely different than saying that those that are lost are lost because they don't believe. It doesn't matter if you are a free willer who puts it all on the person or if you are like me who believes that a person will not come without a direct and possibly even a creative work of the Holy Spirit. The difference here is huge. And that is the issue of this thread. When it comes to it, you and the Primitive Baptists are equivocating on this with infants. You want to be as strict as any Calvinist when it comes to the scope of the atonement yet weasel out when the implications of your belief become apparent. I actually agree with what you are trying to do. I just point out that in that you are waffling too. Welcome to the wafflers.

 

It's a passage the anti-Cals use to dispute Limited Atonement. It needs to be addressed. I just did.