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

[Skandelon]

Excuse me but were you not a Calvinist; isn't that one of your famous claims? So.....why don't you answer your own question?

These were questions that help me realize the errors of my ways.

BTW, many Cals here claim to have been non-Cals prior to becoming Cals, so this charge COULD be leveled against any argument/question they raise too. Is that what you are suggesting needs to happen on a forum meant to debate these types of differences?

BTW, I noticed no one attempted to answer it...??? Wonder why?

 

[Amy.G]

Once again Amy, 1 Cor 5:5.

What did he lose, and what did he retain? (Incidentally, this is one the few times in the scriptures that saved [sozo] is clearly used in the eternal sense.

He lost fellowship with the church. He was later accepted back in.
2 Corinthians 2:7 So that contrariwise ye ought rather to forgive him, and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow.



Are you saying he was saved (eternally), lost his salvation, and was later saved again?


Rather than asking ME questions in hopes I'll guess what you're talking about, why don't you explain what it is you believe, plainly, because I don't have a clue.

 

[kyredneck]

I am not following what you are desiring for us to understand.

One saved has eternal life of glory. One not saved has eternal life of hell.

All humankind have eternal life.

Saved indicates one saved from the eternal life of hell.

Was there something other you are attempting to get us to understand?

See my last post. Comment if you wish,

 

[kyredneck]

...Are you saying he was saved (eternally), lost his salvation, and was later saved again?

He lost the temporal aspects/benefits of his salvation, but retained the eternal aspects of his salvation.

Why is that hard to understand?

And yes, I'm well aware he was brought back into the fold, 1 Cor 5:5 is a snapshot of what his condition was going to be at that time, At that time Paul didn't know that he would repent.

 

[kyredneck]

So, what would be the more appropriate terms for "save" and "lost"?

"Saved sheep" = God's redeemed born from above children brought into a covenant relationship with their Saviour.

"Lost sheep" = God's redeemed born from above children without a covenant relationship with their Saviour.

In the NT the word 'lost' is always in conjunction with 'sheep'. Somewhere along the way 'sheep' was dropped. Nowadays, most believe that 'lost' implies goats bound for eternal destruction.

 

[Amy.G]

"Saved sheep" = God's redeemed born from above children brought into a covenant relationship with their Saviour.

"Lost sheep" = God's redeemed born from above children without a covenant relationship with their Saviour.

In the NT the word 'lost' is always in conjunction with 'sheep'. Somewhere along the way 'sheep' was dropped. Nowadays, most believe that 'lost' implies goats bound for eternal destruction.

How can one be a redeemed, born again, child of God and yet have no relationship with Christ? That makes no sense.

 

[Aaron]

John Hendryx, a Calvinist, made this argument:



The problem with this argument is that it appears to presume that atonement is equal to salvation. It ignores the fact that the demands of justice for one's sin may be fully satisfied without their being saved.

The conditions for being saved are:

(1) satisfaction of divine justice for your sin (atonement)
and
(2) authentic faith in Christ as Lord and Savior.

The error John makes is to assume that if the first condition has been met then a person will necessarily be saved. This ignores the demand of God for the second condition to likewise be met. Thus, it is possible for someone to have the first condition met without ever meeting the second condition and therefore not be saved.

Therefore, affirming unlimited atonement doesn't imply universalism.

So, Christ did not atone for all one's sin. There is the one sin that he must right on his own.

Unless you are going to assert that unbelief is not a sin.

 

[Skandelon]

So, Christ did not atone for all one's sin. There is the one sin that he must right on his own.

The concept that Christ's work paid just so much for just so many is not even supported by classical Reformed teaching...

Unless you are going to assert that unbelief is not a sin.

Asked and answer on the first page. See post #6.

 

[Aaron]

The concept that Christ's work paid just so much for just so many is not even supported by classical Reformed teaching...


Asked and answer on the first page. See post #6.

Then it's the first one. Christ did not atone for all one's sin. There is still the one act that one must do to be be saved.

 

[Skandelon]

There is still the one act that one must do to be be saved.

Even Calvinists affirm this. People are NOT born saved bro...not even in the Calvinistic worldview. But nice try.

 

[Aaron]

Even Calvinists affirm this.

No they don't, bro. Calvinists assert that belief is a birthmark. They had as much to say about their second birth as they did their first one.

 

[Skandelon]

No they don't, bro. Calvinists assert that belief is a birthmark. They had as much to say about their second birth as they did their first one.

Calvinists believe election is unconditional, not salvation. We all affirm: "That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."

Whether that happens because someone is effectually caused to believe or not, it still has to happen.

 

[preacher4truth]

Calvinists believe election is unconditional, not salvation. We all affirm: "That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."

Whether that happens because someone is effectually caused to believe or not, it still has to happen.

Yet another strawman.

"Calvinists" equate election and those who are elect with the fact they will be saved. Each one. Unconditionally.

All the elect will confess this with their mouth.

There is still this pretense in non-cal theology that this applies to some secret mystical group of those not elect, and that 'they too will be saved.'

None who are saved are 'non-elect.'

 

[Iconoclast]

Who, if not God, made the determination that all men would be born with a totally depraved nature due to the fall? Is someone else in control of that? Is that the one thing God isn't sovereign over in Calvinism?

You know, by calling something 'natural' in a system where God is in complete control of nature seems like double speak to me. I know you guys don't believe in 'Mother Nature' so we all know when you say "natural" you mean 'God causally determining through secondary means,' thus how do you think these answers address the question posed? What do you think you are avoiding?

I notice you once again offer no scripture as was requested for your accusation against God. God spelled out the terms to Adam.Adam rebelled and receives the promised consequences. God did not "make"adam rebel....he broke the terms of the covenant.
You twist it once again to "blame God'....calvinists do not blame a holy righteous God for adams sin. You do not seem to like our God. You always blame him...just like the first adam did...the woman you gave me

12And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.

 

[quantumfaith]

I notice you once again offer no scripture as was requested for your accusation against God. God spelled out the terms to Adam.Adam rebelled and receives the promised consequences. God did not "make"adam rebel....he broke the terms of the covenant.
You twist it once again to "blame God'....calvinists do not blame a holy righteous God for adams sin. You do not seem to like our God. You always blame him...just like the first adam did...the woman you gave me

Not cool Icon, not cool...and you KNOW it.

 

[kyredneck]

I notice you once again offer no scripture as was requested for your accusation against God. God spelled out the terms to Adam.Adam rebelled and receives the promised consequences. God did not "make"adam rebel....he broke the terms of the covenant.
You twist it once again to "blame God'....calvinists do not blame a holy righteous God for adams sin. You do not seem to like our God. You always blame him...just like the first adam did...the woman you gave me

Not cool Icon, not cool...and you KNOW it.

I thought it was an excellent post; concise, truthful, and with the application of scriptual type included.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Why do we get criticized for seeing God doing what only God can do?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

When you say, "Can God make me become a Christian?" I tell you yes, for herein rests the power of the gospel. It does not ask your consent; but it gets it. It does not say, "Will you have it?" but it makes you willing in the day of God's power....The gospel wants not your consent, it gets it. It knocks the enmity out of your heart. You say, I do not want to be saved; Christ says you shall be. He makes our will turn round, and then you cry,"'Lord save, or I perish! (C.H.S)

 

[quantumfaith]

I thought it was an excellent post; concise, truthful, and with the application of scriptual type included.

Glad You saw it that way, I did not.

 

[preacher4truth]

I notice you once again offer no scripture as was requested for your accusation against God. God spelled out the terms to Adam.Adam rebelled and receives the promised consequences. God did not "make"adam rebel....he broke the terms of the covenant.
You twist it once again to "blame God'....calvinists do not blame a holy righteous God for adams sin. You do not seem to like our God. You always blame him...just like the first adam did...the woman you gave me

Spot on answer, and as you say, no Scripture.

I really can't see why quaff decided to butt in here and offer support. Anyone offering support against what you said is at enmity with the truth you've expressed. That type of trite behavios I don't pleasant at all, nor profitable behavior for those confessing believers.

Tell me, why is this the typical response and attitude of non-cals towards the reformed brethren?