Do we all really believe in a 'limited atonement?'

[ACF]

Oh, and I have to comment on ACF’s analysis of Spurgeon (mostly because that sermon, along with “Choice Portions” is one of my favorites).

Spurgeon describes sovereign election and will of man to be concurrent biblical doctrines, parallel lines meeting in the eternity of God. Those who seek God do so because God has chosen them. He does not distinguish between atonement and redemption, so it would be an error to imply that he somehow changed course in the latter portion of his ministry. He does criticize those who only focus on the sovereignty of God as well as those who focus solely on the free will of man, but determines that this is not only necessary because of our finite understanding but that it is also a healthy irritation for the Church. But one thing is clear, when Spurgeon spoke of the will of man, it was not a “free-will” in terms of being apart from the sovereign will of God.

Thank you sir.

This is the Spurgeon view on the two doctrines I grew up knowing in the Baptist church.

As I hope was clear in my post, I brought up Spurgeon's sermon because it so eleoquently expressed what I believe about these two doctrines both being scriptural.

You have done a much better job describing this that I did.

I never have meant, nor have I said at any time, that what I called "Free-will" was apart form the sovereign will of God.

I too have long thought of this as my favorite sermon of that fine man of God.

Which is why I brought it up in the first place.

I know how I came to God. He placed a rock in the path I was on, and caused me to make a different choice.

I believe that fits within what you just said?

 

[ACF]

Nothing on this Earth is apart from the Sovereign Will of God for that matter.

 

[DaChaser1]

"They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved." - Paul

man is lost due due to us being found in adam, being sinners both both nature and decision, estranged/seperatd by God, so condemned before even making final willful decision to deny Christ!

 

[Skandelon]

Take it up with Paul. :laugh:

 

[preacher4truth]

Typically I avoid engaging here, but I will, as it is necessary.

I contend that people are on their way to hell prior to rejecting Christ, as that is where the lost are going today.

2 Thess. 2:10 is offered as a proof text against my statement. So, one is using a verse in the context of this thread and basically as saying "They are going to hell because they refused to love the truth."

So basically you are saying these are going to hell because of rejecting Christ.

Where were 'they' going before 'rejecting Christ?'

We preach because men are lost and condemned and on their way to hell prior to even hearing of Christ or the Gospel.

Another thing, the passage (2Thess. 2:10) isn't talking of eternal condemnation (i.e. Lake of fire), but of judgment of God during tribulation. In addition, the contrast is made of those condemned; v. 10, and those God had chosen before the foundation of the world to salvation; v. 13-14.

The passage at hand isn't even dealing with this, it is rather dealing with those who are lost being deceived by Sovereign allowance, or, allowing Satan the opportunity of deceiving these who hate the truth, which amounts to those who are not elect. But that's the problem with proof texting, one comes up with spurious conclusions, that is, that people go to hell for rejecting Christ. Again, they're already on their way there, and this text isn't related to your point.

Why do we preach to the lost?

Because they are on their way to hell.

Thus your passage is merely a proof text used to support a fallacious conclusion, and your interpretation isn't supporting the context, nor is your conclusion properly representing the rest of the Scriptures as relating to where lost man is now headed.

With your logic don't preach to others, they're OK. They only get condemned if they reject Christ? Not so.

Rightly handling the Word of truth avoids these deficient conclusions you're espousing.

 

[preacher4truth]

man is lost due due to us being found in adam, being sinners both both nature and decision, estranged/seperatd by God, so condemned before even making final willful decision to deny Christ!

Yup.

I love the "take it up with Paul" line. The verse used is robbed completely of its context.

Man is lost, and needs to be saved (rescued) which is why we preach the Gospel, so that the lost will be saved. :wavey:

 

[JonC]

Probably the best support against people perishing because they reject Christ is the implication that God didn't send Christ into the world to condemn the world - the world was already condemned. The condemnation is, though, for rejecting the Light. I should have left the comment that people perish for rejecting Christ off my post. While that is my belief, it is another issue all together (sorry).


My actual point was that, given the logic DaChaser1 presented, if Christ’s death effectively atoned for the sins of the elect, then there was no need (in regards to salvation) for the resurrection. The elect does not need to come to repentance (which I’ll accept as a work of God, not of the individual), doesn’t need to believe and does not need to possess a faith at all in Christ. The elect has absolutely no reason to need salvation beyond Christ’s death because his debt is paid.


PLEASE NOTE – I am not saying that this is a natural result of Calvinistic thought – it is not. But the argument DaChaser1 posed against universal atonement presupposes a Calvinistic limited atonement view on the opposing position. I was not defending universal atonement so there isn’t a need to provide another argument – I was pointing out that the argument presented was not valid.

 

[quantumfaith]

Iconoblast,

You welcmed me in words only.

Because I disagree with you, whether it be on doctrine, or the meaning of Spurgeon, is beside the point.

You called what I said "Lies" and "Falsehoods".

I said nothing to merit such an ugly response, it is just a tactic you choose to win arguments.

I am not angry at being called a liar, as it is not true.

However, if this is how you respond to another believer, I hate to think of the damage you would do behind a pulpit, and God forbid you ever go on a mission trip.

Rather than preaching the GOSPEL, you spend your time here earnestly defending a doctrine I am sure you believe, but in all truth should be of little interest to a mature Christian, as it is an irrelevant doctrine to anyone who is already saved.

The only purpose your combative "debating" serves is to bring back an old controversy that has split apart the Baptist church in centuries past, and is doing so again today.

You call me a liar, you label what I, and countless millions of other believing Christians, believe as a heresy.

You have no authority, place, or right to define how anyone other than your own "self" came to salvation.

I do not speak for you on this matter, but your actions do, and the words you use toward other Christians are damning words, from one end or the other.

Chist commanded we preach the Gospel, but rather than bringing new believers into the Body of Christ, you are working overtime to drive other, already believing Christians out of the Baptist Church.

I have been a Baptist more than half a century, I grew up in a very large SBC church, and prior to 2000, both sides of this old controvesy existed in harmony within the same Church, and it was only with the revisions of the BMOF that self righteous zelots were again to be heard thrashing those who disagreed with there precious Calvin.

I cannot speak for you, but I am indwelled by the Holy Ghost, having Blessed Assurance in my salvation.

You are so puffed up in pride over what you think you know that you dare to tell me how I came to know God.

You are just anogher pilgrim like me, no more, certainly no lesss, and you have no way to know how God has dealt with me.

God works in His own ways, and it is not your place to define them.

There are many Christian "beliefs", but there is but one Christian "Faith.

That LIVING Faith is a Gift of God.

If what John Calvin taught speaks to your heart, and brought you to God, then that is your truth.

It is not my truth.

Before you start impressing us alll with your vast knoweldge by damning me to Hell as a heritic, please consider two things.

You don't get to tell my testimony, I was there when it happened, and I ought to know.

Being prideful of knowledge is the oldest curse on Mankind, and you would do well to consider not only the facts of, but the nature of Adam's disobediance, and the result of the works of knowlege you do here.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

ACF....Not totally sure why you go into this emotional rant, but you evidently have issues. Lets walk through this.
As I previously posted when you twisted Spurgeons words....You come in here with an agenda. Now it is coming out and you want to inflict it on me.
The problems you have with biblical teaching can be helped, but not if you are just set to resist. Lets see what is on your mind....
my responses are in red letters.


This objection is also vile. because I answer you on a question does not equate to being prideful.Only when you cannot answer you seek toshoot me and any others who might have learned something that you have not as being prideful.
Pride is not a good thing....by willful ignorance is not a gift of the Spirit either.
If you do not believe as i do ...fine ..offer scriptural correction. this emotionally unstable rant you may keep to yourself:thumbsup:

Bravo Brother Icono......Thank you for your truth:thumbs: BTW, I quoted in Blue (GIANTS BLUE) :laugh:

 

[JonC]

Thank you sir.

This is the Spurgeon view on the two doctrines I grew up knowing in the Baptist church...

I know how I came to God. He placed a rock in the path I was on, and caused me to make a different choice.

I believe that fits within what you just said?

I don’t necessarily agree with all of Spurgeon’s views, but he does eloquently and in a straight forward manner present his thoughts. I was not acquainted with Spurgeon through the church, but several years ago found a book of his sermons and have enjoyed his insights ever sense.

I think the quote below reflects much about the man:


“I believe the doctrine of election, because I am quite sure that if God had not chosen
me I should never have chosen him; and I am sure he chose me before I was born, or
else he never would have chosen me afterwards; and he must have elected me for
reasons unknown to me, for I never could find any reason in myself why he should
have looked upon me with special love.”

 

[Forest]

Typically I avoid engaging here, but I will, as it is necessary.

I contend that people are on their way to hell prior to rejecting Christ, as that is where the lost are going today.

2 Thess. 2:10 is offered as a proof text against my statement. So, one is using a verse in the context of this thread and basically as saying "They are going to hell because they refused to love the truth."

So basically you are saying these are going to hell because of rejecting Christ.

Where were 'they' going before 'rejecting Christ?'

We preach because men are lost and condemned and on their way to hell prior to even hearing of Christ or the Gospel.

Another thing, the passage (2Thess. 2:10) isn't talking of eternal condemnation (i.e. Lake of fire), but of judgment of God during tribulation. In addition, the contrast is made of those condemned; v. 10, and those God had chosen before the foundation of the world to salvation; v. 13-14.

The passage at hand isn't even dealing with this, it is rather dealing with those who are lost being deceived by Sovereign allowance, or, allowing Satan the opportunity of deceiving these who hate the truth, which amounts to those who are not elect. But that's the problem with proof texting, one comes up with spurious conclusions, that is, that people go to hell for rejecting Christ. Again, they're already on their way there, and this text isn't related to your point.

Why do we preach to the lost?

Because they are on their way to hell.

Thus your passage is merely a proof text used to support a fallacious conclusion, and your interpretation isn't supporting the context, nor is your conclusion properly representing the rest of the Scriptures as relating to where lost man is now headed.

With your logic don't preach to others, they're OK. They only get condemned if they reject Christ? Not so.

Rightly handling the Word of truth avoids these deficient conclusions you're espousing.

An elders mission is not to preach to the non-elect but feed the flock of God.

 

[Forest]

Yup.

I love the "take it up with Paul" line. The verse used is robbed completely of its context.

Man is lost, and needs to be saved (rescued) which is why we preach the Gospel, so that the lost will be saved. :wavey:

We preach the gospel not to save the eternally lost but to feed God's sheep. We can be an instrument for bringing his sheep to an understanding of the truth and by doing so, save them from believing a false doctrine.

 

[preacher4truth]

An elders mission is not to preach to the non-elect but feed the flock of God.

You don't know who is elect, and who isn't. I preach the Gospel to those who are outside the church walls. We equip the saints within the walls of the local church to reach those around them, be a witness &c.

 

[Forest]

Probably the best support against people perishing because they reject Christ is the implication that God didn't send Christ into the world to condemn the world - the world was already condemned. The condemnation is, though, for rejecting the Light. I should have left the comment that people perish for rejecting Christ off my post. While that is my belief, it is another issue all together (sorry).


My actual point was that, given the logic DaChaser1 presented, if Christ’s death effectively atoned for the sins of the elect, then there was no need (in regards to salvation) for the resurrection. The elect does not need to come to repentance (which I’ll accept as a work of God, not of the individual), doesn’t need to believe and does not need to possess a faith at all in Christ. The elect has absolutely no reason to need salvation beyond Christ’s death because his debt is paid.


PLEASE NOTE – I am not saying that this is a natural result of Calvinistic thought – it is not. But the argument DaChaser1 posed against universal atonement presupposes a Calvinistic limited atonement view on the opposing position. I was not defending universal atonement so there isn’t a need to provide another argument – I was pointing out that the argument presented was not valid.

By Christ's resserrection he conquered death for the elect.

 

[ACF]

Forest,

Why then, tell me please, was the last commandment of the Lord Jesus Christ to "Preach the Gospel to every living creature?

False doctrines are all over the place, they are, thank God, fairly easy to discern by a disciple standing within the Light where it is easier to see.

I would certainly call into question any doctrine that subverts the Lords commandment.

I have encountered more than one false doctrine that tries to decieve believers into thinking the command to Preach the Gospel, often called the "Great Commison", does not apply to us by claiming that the four Gospel Accounts do not apply to us.

Ususally this sort of false doctrine is espoused today by Hyper Dispensationalists, but it is a very old Lie, that goes back to the Gnostics, such as Marcion, during the first and second century of the church.

Such is of evil orgins, and I am, by no means, suggesting you follow anything like what I describe above, indeed I doubt you would have any interst in being on a Baptist forum if you did.

I am just quite unsure how you could come to the conclusion you seem to have about preaching the Gospel.

I realise that some Calinistic positions may make it difficult to understand a need to preach to the lost, but I think that even John Calvin would disagree with such an extreme position, as to suggest we are to ignore the command of the Lord.

 

[12strings]

Forest,

Why then, tell me please, was the last commandment of the Lord Jesus Christ to "Preach the Gospel to every living creature?

False doctrines are all over the place, they are, thank God, fairly easy to discern by a disciple standing within the Light where it is easier to see.

I would certainly call into question any doctrine that subverts the Lords commandment.

I have encountered more than one false doctrine that tries to decieve believers into thinking the command to Preach the Gospel, often called the "Great Commison", does not apply to us by claiming that the four Gospel Accounts do not apply to us.

Ususally this sort of false doctrine is espoused today by Hyper Dispensationalists, but it is a very old Lie, that goes back to the Gnostics, such as Marcion, during the first and second century of the church.

Such is of evil orgins, and I am, by no means, suggesting you follow anything like what I describe above, indeed I doubt you would have any interst in being on a Baptist forum if you did.

I am just quite unsure how you could come to the conclusion you seem to have about preaching the Gospel.

I realise that some Calinistic positions may make it difficult to understand a need to preach to the lost, but I think that even John Calvin would disagree with such an extreme position, as to suggest we are to ignore the command of the Lord.

ACF, I cannot say for sure, but Forrest seems to be a Primitive Baptist from the things he is posting here. Some would call them Hyper-calvinists. They hold that the gospel is for the enlightening of the elect, and that there are actually 2 different salvations spoken of in scriptures. The Gospel gives a temporal, earthly salvation from false belief...but eternal salvation is attained soley by the electing and regeneration of the person, even someone who never heard or believed the gospel in their life. Primitive Baptists generally do not believe we should share the gospel with non-believers. The person who is saved eternally is ENTIRELY passive.

Both Spurgeoun in England, and Andrew Fuller/William Carey in America were at odds with hyper-calvinists on this issue, and Fuller and Carey, both calvinists, were primary leaders in early Baptist Missionary work.

I personally do not see in scriptures where Primitive Baptists get their belief in two different salvations, one temporal and one eternal. I assume it is driven by a logical inference of the doctrine of unconditional election. I also do not know if Primitive Baptists would describe themselves as being "hyper-calvinists". I think that is a derogatory term given by their opponents.

(If I have mis-represented the position of Primitive Baptists here, it was not intentional, and I hope Forrest or KYRedneck will correct me.)

 

[JonC]

By Christ's resserrection he conquered death for the elect.

Yes. That’s my point. Apart from the resurrection our faith is worthless and we are still in our sins. (1 Cor. 15:17)

Sometimes discussions regarding limited vs. universal atonement leads to statements that can be misunderstood to indicate that Christ’s atoning death alone (apart from the resurrection) has paid the price of our sins and has redeemed us. Consider the argument presented:

IF jesus actually did indeed died in the place of all sinners, that he really paid their sin debt in reality and they were reconciled back to God because of the Cross..

Would have either sinners in hell with atonement provided for them, or else they rejected Jesus, but still had sin debt paid in full!

That is where concept of Universalism creeps into the discussion!

This is actually an argument presented by John Owen (maybe by other’s also), but it assumes that those who hold a universal view consider the atoning act alone (apart from faith and apart from the resurrection) as the point of reconciliation. Those who hold a limited view of atonement don’t think this way, so it shouldn’t be imposed on another’s position as nothing in universal atonement (except for those who hold to universal salvation) ascribe to that conclusion.

I'm not advocating universal atonement, but the argument presented by DaChaser1 against universal atonement was flawed.

 

[Jon-Marc]

Atonement is provided for EVERYONE, but only those who respond to God's call will be saved. It is NOT God's will for any to perish, but not everyone will humble themselves to the point of recognizing or admitting that "I am a sinner and need to be saved." Only those who do will receive atonement.

 

[jbh28]

Atonement is provided for EVERYONE, but only those who respond to God's call will be saved. It is NOT God's will for any to perish, but not everyone will humble themselves to the point of recognizing or admitting that "I am a sinner and need to be saved." Only those who do will receive atonement.

So the humble deserve salvation? Is that what you are saying?

 

[DaChaser1]

DaChaser1,
I do not understand the logic you’re presenting. Applying the logic to limited atonement: if Christ’s death paid the debt for the elect alone, then why do the elect need to believe as their debt is paid? Wouldn’t they already be saved apart from atonement?
The view Christ atoned for the sins of the world, and therefore paid the debt in full , does not necessarily mean that that salvation follows. It does mean, though, that those who wind up in hell are not there for violating the law, or for sins that they have committed. They perish because they have rejected Christ. Many who support universal atonement do so because it is supportive of the judgeship of Christ. Of course, many do support unlimited atonement because they believe in unlimited salvation.

The Gace of the Cross is effectual apllied by god towards those whom he has elected to receive Christ, but they still MUST appopiate that grace by receiving Christ by faith!

So ONLY those whom have that Grace effectually apllied towards their sin debt gets its benefit and pardoning, so jesus could NOT have died specifically for sins of each individual, but in that His death IS sufficient to have been able to save all, just that not all get saved, as he iin a specific sense died JUST for His elected ones!