How can you preach the gospel if you believe in limited atonement?

You are right. I never tell people Jesus died for them because I have no idea if he did. That presents no problem in sharing the gospel with people. Let us use one of the simplest methods of personal evangelism today, Romans Road.

Romans 3:23 For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Romans 5:8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

Romans 10:9-10 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

Those individuals who repent and believe will be saved. If their profession is real then they are numbered with the Elect.

Simple, no?

 

Don't you find this problematic at all, even in the slightest?

Let's break it down to actually get to conclusions -

1. If you can't tell people Jesus's sacrifice on the cross is an offer to them, particularly and specifically, for redemption so they repent and live - then from Rom 5:8, you cannot tell anyone that God offered His Son because He loved them - yes? At least not until they are numbered with the elect after believing.

2. But you do realize that the believing happens with me knowing with certainty that God has loved me and that Christ has died for me while I am still a sinner enemy of God, right? If I don't hear this meant in the Gospel, irrespective of your verbal gymnastics, I cannot believe - for what could I potentially believe into, if that isn't a reality?

3. So, even for the elect to believe, shouldn't the Gospel message really carry with it the meaning that God does love them particularly and Jesus really did die for them individually - so that they can hear and believe by the power of the Gospel? And if so, when this same message is preached to the non-elect - doesn't it amount to a lie as per calvinism?

4. Also, having meant that the world is not each person on it so that John 3:16 becomes qualified, how do you interpret what I see as love towards the non-elect in Matt 23:37 desiring to gather them as chickens under the wings?

Why does God even desire the non-elect to repent and live (Eze 33:11) in the first place?

Not really, no.

 

By differentiating between the Limited Atonement and the Universal Offer of Redemption at the cross.

1. Atonement must factor in and include all the believers' sins, even those committed in the future from when Jesus died on the cross, yes?

2. If Atonement factors in the future till the end of time, why can't it include factoring in who would remain believers until the end of time?

3. Consequently, atonement can be seen as a work completed at the cross by Christ having factored in the future till the end of time and knowing who would qualify for it as believers and who wouldn't because of their unbelief - therein limited based on the common grounds of faith.

4. However the Gospel is preached to us in the present as we head towards the end of time - and here Christ still makes the offer sincerely for us to believe into. If we do believe and endure in faith to the end, Christ will have already atoned for us on the cross - if not, Christ would've not atoned for us having seen the end from the beginning.

 

Not at all.

The Atonement atones for all sins for all elect persons throughout all human history.

All those who truly come to faith in Christ are believers. They will remain in Christ. I am not sure what you are getting at here.

Again, I do not know what you are getting at. The Atonement atones for sins for all elect persons throughout human history. It is not limited on the common grounds of faith. It is limited according to God's intent. Ephesians 1:5 states believers are predestined for sonship. This has always been God's sovereign plan. John 10:11 says that Jesus laid down His life for his sheep. In other words, He died for His sheep and His sheep alone.

The Atonement is not some Las Vegas game of chance. I refer to it as Definite Atonement because it was a purposeful act on the part of the Son to secure forgiveness for His elect. All those who place their faith in Christ have been predestined to do so and will be numbered with the elect.

For what it is worth, no preacher worth his salt goes around preaching the "Gospel of the Elect". He preaches the Gospel of Jesus Christ and calls on everyone listening to repent and place their faith in Christ. He lacks perfect knowledge and does not know whether a person is elect or not. I can look you straight in the face and claim to be a believer but inside I can be as reprobate as Judas Iscariot. But that does not change the fact that Christ died to atone for the sins of those the Father gave to Him (John 6:37).

 

I don't see such a black and white differential in God's dealing with the elect and non-elect in Scriptures.

I too believe only the elect are saved and that God has purposed specifically only for the elect to be used as vessels of honor in whom He Himself would operate and use as His workmanship. I also see God beginning a work of redemption by His conditional mercy in the non-elect from which they themselves fall away in unbelief - this also completely reconciles the Hebrews, 2Pet 2 falling away passages that the calvinists do not give complete account for.

True. But predestining the elect to salvation does not imply predestining the non-elect to condemnation. Inverses aren't logical inferences.
So this doesn't negate or deny the possibility that God has provided means for the non-elect too to be redeemed on the grounds of faith. They simply fall away to their own condemnation. God knows this and limits atonement only to the elect therein.

As background context for where I come from, I believe in Single Predestination, where I hold calvinist doctrines as wholly applicable to the elect and arminian doctrines as applicable to the non-elect where only the elect are saved finally. This seems to reconcile all of Scriptures without compromising.

True. I believe this too. But this verse does not state one way or the other if God's intent didn't include the grounds of faith - we must get that from elsewhere in Scriptures then.

 

But God doesn't lack such perfect knowledge. When any preacher worth his salt preaches the Gospel, He essentially is passing on God's command - appealing, on behalf of God, a message ratified by God.

In effect, God Himself is making a promise to the listener that if he repented and believed in His Son, God would save him unto eternal life. How can God make such a promise to the unintended listener without any qualification?
(It would be another story had there been a Gospel of the Elect preached with the Holy Spirit pressing on only the elect that they are elect and that this message is for them alone while the others shrug their shoulders and go on their evil ways.)

 

@ivdavid , thank you for your thoughts.

 

You preach the truth that Jesus has come to save a multitude of sinners in Christ.
You preach the truth that the love of God is only found in Christ.
You preach the truth that All the Father has given to the Son are going to repent and believe the gospel.
1tim1;
14 And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.

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.

16 Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.

 

Instead of saying "Christ died for your sins" say "Christ died for our sins". Leave the identifying up to the listener, that way you personally are covered as you left it up to the listener, whether 1) he/she wants to believe and 2) he/she has been granted the power to believe.

 

What stops you from saying what you just did to others?. If you believe these things your self. Then others would believe also. Not everyone but some would.
MB

 

1. Shouldn't we present the Gospel without any guile or deceit? When addressing a crowd you're preaching to, does "our" refer to the "we + you" or just the "we"? Why intentionally lead them to believe the former while actually meaning the latter?

2. This is self-evident - that one cannot believe something as true when it is not presented as truth in the first place. The Truth proposition must always precede the believing, never the other way around. My believing something as true cannot and ought not to make something true - so is Christ dying for me personally ever presented as truth so that I can believe it?

3. The truth of Christ's death for man is not some sort of independent cultish initiatory belief - it is causative in its very truth. God's kindness leads to repentance - and I see that kindness in God's provision of His Son for me, me who is vile, wretched and who stood in rebellious enmity against God. And He still offers something undeserving to me. This is what leads me to repent and believe in His goodness towards me as Good News, His just wrath being turned away from me. So, even for the elect to believe in the first place, Christ's death for that individual person must be presented as absolute truth prior to his believing. How would you reconcile this with your position?

 

i was responding positively to the question. Personally i believe Christ died for all men.
It's called - playing the devil's advocate.
BUT
i don't believe i deceive any one by allowing them to choose whether they want to be part of "Christ died for our sins".

There is another possible issue by saying "Christ died for your sins" because some may sense an air of ELITISM in that "your sins" is accusatory - implying that you are a nasty sinner but I on the other hand am pure, white as snow (which is true).

 

Is it not guile and deceit to tell a person that they have the power to accept or reject the Supreme King and at the same time tell them that God graciously saves them solely by Christ alone?

 

that is not the gospel

 

It's not good news that the Supreme King of Creation chooses to save sinners by redeeming them and atoning for their sins?
How is that bad news?

 

at this point in time i have lost the line of thought. what is your thesis question?
what are you trying to prove or disprove?

The gospel is the forgiveness of sin and the gift of eternal life through faith in the death burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Granted there are several ways to express this with a different array of words but the essentials are there.

 

The good news is that the Supreme King of Creation chooses to save sinners by redeeming them and atoning for their sins. He then gives them the gift of faith which enables them to persevere in belief.
The question to ask is: "Do you believe you are a sinner and that there is no other means of salvation except through faith in Jesus atoning sacrifice?

 

ok

 

Three things to note, ". . . he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. . . ." 1 John 2:2. Does not mean the whole world has been reconciled, but ". . . God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, . . ." -- 2 Corinthians 5:19. For the purpose of those who were given "out of the world" to Christ. John 17:6. John 17:9. Effectively understood by some as a limited atonement.