How Do We Define "Limited Atonement" per the Bible?

No, but it also does not say others are excluded.

It says what it says, Jesus did not say he died for the sheep "only" here.

I agree.

I agree.

Again, it says what it says, that Jesus bought the church with his blood. That is ALL it says.

It also doesn't say Jesus loved "only" the church and gave himself for it, you ADD to what it says

 

No sir! Pharoah hardened his own heart, and God used it for His glory.

It doesn't say "ye canot" it says "ye will not!"

 

Rippon, I had to snip parts of your quote in my last post as I am on a phone and can only post limited text. I tried not to skip over any important points you made. That is the ONLY reason I snipped your quotes.

What you fail to see is that you ADD to scripture. When the scriptures say Jesus loved the church and gave himself for it, you interpret this to say Jesus loved the church ONLY and gave himself for it ONLY. You may be unaware of this, but that is what you are doing.

The reason for this is that you approach scripture with the ASSUMPTION that Limited Atonement is true. This is not necessarily true, and in fact I believe LA is completely false and error, because there are MANY scriptures that say Jesus died for all men. I accept these scriptures at face value, they simply say Jesus loved the church and gave himself for it. I do not add or read into these verses what is not said. The scriptures NEVER say Jesus died for the sheep "only" or gave himself for the church "only", those are ASSUMPTIONS you read into these verses.

 

In case you don't know what goats was used for in history with sheep.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judas_goat

A Judas goat will lead sheep to slaughter, while its own life is spared.

 

There is more than one way to look at the passage.
It may be said that this includes those who will believe in the future. It is not that the decision has already been made. They still have the choice; God in his foreknowledge and omniscience knows what choice they will make, and as you said, had known from eternity past.

 

This quote is about effectual calling not limited atonement, which is the point we are discussing. There is nothing in the quote that contradicts or ever addresses the point of distinction that I have drawn. Plus, the point I was making is from an article written by respected Calvinistic scholar Richard Muller. He recognized the distinction and I believe objective Calvinists who really study this matter with an open mind will too.

 

I agree.

These attacks have gone both ways by both camps and you all know it is true. We all tend to notice the 'sins' of the 'other side' more than we notice our own, but I think objective observers can see it is a problem coming from both sides (and typically from the same individuals).

I just got online and found all the reported post and was about to start 'moderating,' but the quotes have been copied so many times it would be useless and Bob, an Admin, has already interjected.

What concerns me is that even in Bob's reply he makes the same error as he is attempting to rebuke by accusing all of those who view this doctrine differently of "attacking the Word of God and Sovereignty" and "unlearned in the Scripture." This seems as blatantly inflammatory as equating the other group with JW/Mormans.

I believe this must stop. Someone can be learned in the Scriptures, believe the Word of God, and affirm His Sovereignty and still vehemently disagree with Calvinistic doctrine.

We need to try and refrain from INFLAMMATORY LANGUAGE, which are words that are clearly not meant to address the subject, but are meant to insult, aggravate, enrage, or put down another individual or group of individuals. Most of us, including myself, are guilty of slipping into this mode rather than just addressing the subject. We need to hold ourselves in check and moderate ourselves, as the rules instruct.

Please address the topic, not the person. This tread's subject is "limited atonement."

 

So this leaves us to ask the question: On what basis did God choose those whom He gave to the Son? I think your answer will be based on his foreknowledge.

This opens up for debate the question, on what did God base his foreknowledge? Is it because an omniscient God just knows that stuff? Or is it the result of his decree from eternity. Is it that He has determined whom he will choose; that those whom he chooses he will illuminate and convict, and enable to exercise saving faith and to choose Christ? Are his decree and his foreknowledge two sides of the same coin?

I, of course, believe it is the latter. The foreseen faith view essentially is that man elects himself.

So this, I think, is the crux of the debate.

 

Tom, I believe a picture of how God's foreknowledge, election, and free will works together is shown in Judges 7 with Gideon.

Gideon was going to go against the Midianites with 32 thousand men. God said this was too many, lest the people think their "own hand" had "saved" them (only God saves). Gideon said any man who was afraid (faithless) could leave, 22 thousand men returned home leaving 10 thousand. God said this was still too many, and commanded Gideon to bring these men down to a body of water (the Word/Spirit).

Now here is where we see foreknowledge, election, and free will at once. God told Gideon to watch (foreknowledge) and note which men knelt down to drink, and which drank like dogs, and to choose (election) those that brought water to their mouth and lapped like a dog (humility). Those that lapped like a dog were 300 men, and this is who God chose to go into battle.

Did God predetermine who would be chosen? Yes. Did God know only 300 would lap like dogs? Yes. Did God compel or force those 300 men to lap like dogs? No.

If God had not brought them down to the water (the Word and Spirit) could they drink? No. And we cannot be saved unless God brings us to the living water, his Word and Spirit.

God already knows exactly which men will humble themselves like dogs and drink of this water, and he has chosen them before they actually drink. But he does not compel who will drink, and who will not.

Now, there it is if you can see it.

 

Interesting. Thanks!